recipe_submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the recipe goes to a human moderation queue rather than being published immediately, which is useful. But the truncated 'this does N...' clause likely contained the key behavioral caveat, and nothing is said about reversibility, resulting status, or what the caller observes afterward.

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 scope/purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However the text is cut off mid-sentence, leaving the second half of the definition unusable, so the brevity is a defect rather than efficiency.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what submission means for the caller: approval flow, timing, and what is returned. None of that is present, and the truncation removes whatever caveat was intended, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The only implicit input is the caller's own saved recipe, which the description does mention.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (one of your saved recipes/skills) and the destination (community moderation queue for review), so the action is identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like recipe_install or recipe_save, and the sentence is truncated mid-clause.

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 'one of YOUR saved recipes' hints at a prerequisite (you must have saved it first), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among recipe_save/recipe_install/recipe_import. The cut-off clause appears to have been the routing/exclusion guidance, and it is missing.

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