create_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether registering an existing recipe_id errors, overwrites, or versions; whether validation of the recipe content happens; or what happens on malformed YAML. Only the fact that the operation is a mutation ('register a new') is inferable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the whole definition is one clause plus a modifier. Brevity here is partly under-specification rather than deliberate economy, but structurally it is clean.

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-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover ID collision behavior, recipe content expectations, and relationship to run_recipe. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at call-correctness.

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 explains neither recipe_id (naming rules, uniqueness, scope) nor yaml_content (expected schema/shape of a recipe). It also says 'YAML or JSON' while the parameter is named yaml_content, leaving an agent unsure whether JSON is accepted in that field.

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?

Names a specific verb (register) and resource (declarative recipe), with the medium (YAML/JSON) and the key value proposition (no code changes). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling run_recipe, which an agent could easily confuse with registration.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus run_recipe, no mention that a recipe must exist before running it, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance. 'Without touching code' hints at the declarative alternative but never spells out a decision rule.

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