run_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Loops, critic checks, and budget guards' hints at long-running, potentially costly or multi-step execution, but it says nothing about side effects on assets, whether the run is reversible, how budget is consumed or enforced, or whether approval is required — critical for a tool with a dry_run flag and asset-parenting inputs.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and keyed identifier, with no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested inputs object, a dry-run mode, no annotations, and no output schema, the single sentence is far too thin. It neither explains parameter usage nor describes what a run returns or how failures, critic rejections, and budget exhaustion surface.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description clarifies only that execution is keyed 'by ID' (recipe_id). The nested 'inputs' object, 'reason', 'dry_run', 'project', and 'parent_asset_ids' are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent unable to populate them correctly.

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?

A specific verb ('Run') plus a specific resource ('declarative YAML/JSON recipe by ID') tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It hints at differentiating features (loops, critic checks, budget guards) but never names its closest siblings run_verb, create_recipe, or run_agent_brief, so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to use this versus run_verb, run_agent_brief, or create_recipe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must guess whether a recipe must exist first and when a declarative recipe is preferred over a direct verb or agent brief.

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