recipe

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states 'Safety: optional instance · reveal opt-in only', but this largely duplicates schema descriptions (e.g., instance optional, reveal default false). It does not disclose that create actions provision real resources, require specific permissions, or are irreversible. No contradiction with annotations, but insufficient transparency.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists actions in a structured signature format. The safety line is brief and informative, though somewhat cryptic. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly clearer in the safety section.

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?

Given the tool has 25 parameters, 4 actions, and an output schema, the description provides action signatures and a safety note, covering the core structure. However, it lacks usage selection guidance, behavioral details beyond the schema, and context on what 'recipes' entails. The output schema covers return values, but the description is not fully complete for a complex orchestration 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value by mapping actions to their specific parameter groups (e.g., create-git-app(server_uuid, git_repository, git_branch, repo_path?, build_pack?)), which the schema does not provide since it lists all parameters flatly. This helps agents know which parameters apply to each action, exceeding the baseline.

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 clearly identifies the tool as multi-resource orchestration with specific action names (create-git-app, create-app-db, create-one-click, recommend) and parameter signatures. It is distinct from sibling tools focused on single resources, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'orchestration' and action list make the purpose concrete.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like application, database, or service. The 'multi-resource orchestration' phrase implies it is for combined workflows, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons. The action signatures show what can be done, but not when to choose this over sibling tools.

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