gimp_run_recipe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions that recipes are Python jobs with defaults applied. It does not mention potential side effects on GIMP state, failure modes, execution time, or whether recipes can mutate images or settings. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes code.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying context about recipes and defaults is placed right after. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, this is enough to invoke a known recipe: provide a name and optional params. However, it omits how to discover valid recipe names (e.g., via gimp_list_recipes) and offers no caution about running Python jobs inside GIMP, leaving an agent without key context for safe selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds 'with parameters' and 'defaults applied' beyond the parameter names. It does not explain how the free-form params object should be structured, how it maps to recipe variables, or how defaults interact with supplied parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Run a recipe') and resource ('by name'), and it clarifies that recipes are Python jobs executed inside GIMP with defaults applied. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like gimp_run_python or gimp_batch_recipe, but the 'by name' wording hints at a defined recipe registry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gimp_run_python, gimp_batch_recipe, or gimp_list_recipes. 'Recipes are Python jobs... with defaults applied' implies a predefined, defaults-driven workflow, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.