cook_top_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and largely fails: it does not say whether the call blocks until the cook finishes (despite a `block` parameter), how long a cook may take, whether it can be interrupted, or what side effects occur on the node's state or caches. Only the vague notion of "executing work items" hints at behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so it is efficient. However, the brevity is a function of under-specification rather than disciplined editing; a longer description would have earned its place here.

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?

This is a state-changing execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not cover blocking semantics, failure modes, or what cooking changes on the node. Given the tool's complexity and the complete absence of structured behavioral data, it is materially incomplete.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. `node_path` is loosely implied by "a TOP node," but `block` (default true) and `generate_only` (default false) are never explained, leaving two of three parameters with no semantic guidance anywhere.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ("Cook a TOP node"), which is more concrete than the title alone, but the qualifier "to execute its work items" is essentially circular restatement of what cooking means. Nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings such as cook_frame_range, cancel_top_cook, or pause_top_cook.

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 cook_frame_range, cancel_top_cook, or pause_top_cook, and no prerequisites or context about when a cook is appropriate. The agent must infer the usage entirely from the name.

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