start_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Start (enable)' and the HTTP method, but does not explain what enabling a recipe entails, side effects, permissions, or whether it is reversible. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, but it provides minimal information. While it is not bloated, it borders on under-specification rather than being a well-structured, informative summary.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter explanation, the description omits crucial context such as what happens after starting a recipe, expected return values, or error conditions. Even for a simple action, the agent lacks enough information to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has a single 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The placeholder ':id' in the HTTP endpoint implies it is the recipe identifier, but the description does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning or format, leaving the agent to infer it from the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb 'Start' and resource 'recipe', and adds an 'enable' clarification plus the HTTP endpoint. This makes the tool's action clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like force_run_recipe or stop_recipe.

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 tool versus alternatives such as force_run_recipe or stop_recipe. The description only states the action without any context about prerequisites or conditions that would select this tool.

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