write_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It surfaces the destructive overwrite behavior, the automatic extension handling, the parent-folder prerequisite, and the atomic write guarantee (temp file + rename). This is meaningful transparency beyond a simple 'write' statement, though it does not mention permissions or failure modes.

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 three concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, followed only by high-value behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or generic filler.

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 write tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call-time needs: purpose, parameter semantics, prerequisites, edge-case handling, and atomicity. It is not missing any critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly. It could only be improved by explicit alternative routing or error conditions, but those are secondary.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents that `source` is raw Cooklang text, and it gives behavioral details about `path`: the parent folder must already exist and a missing .cook extension is added automatically. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, even if path resolution details are not fully spelled out.

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 specific action and resource: 'Create or overwrite a recipe.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling read/list/search/delete tools, even without naming them. The verb-plus-object construction leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear usage context by defining the tool as the create/overwrite operation, which is implicitly contrasted with the read/delete/search siblings. It also provides practical invocation guidance: the parent folder must exist, and a missing .cook extension is added automatically. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is strong.

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