record_proven_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it does not say whether an existing proven recipe is overwritten, what happens if the referenced print failed, whether the version must exist, or what side effects occur. The remaining text is marketing copy about Pro features rather than operational 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?

The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, which is efficient. But the middle sentence ('Everything in Free, plus calibration that learns your printer, mid-print edits, and unlimited textures and decorations') is pure tier marketing that does not help an agent invoke the tool, and the upgrade URL is only marginally relevant.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage — the description should be doing substantially more. Aside from flagging the Pro requirement, it leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool confidently.

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 only 18% (notes and success carry trivial 'Default:' strings), so with 11 parameters the description needed to compensate and does not. It adds no meaning for design_id, version, decoration_type, product_type, parameters, printer_name, material, filament_line, or nozzle_diameter_mm beyond what the bare schema names suggest.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource — recording a design version's recipe as proven after a print — which an agent can distinguish from the sibling list_proven_recipes. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the action and object are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'after a print' implies the trigger condition, giving a baseline when-to-use signal. However, it never states exclusions or points to related tools like record_print_outcome, record_design_version_outcome, or list_proven_recipes, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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