neuron_recipe_import

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals side effects and behavior: imported recipes are saved to ~/.neuron/recipes/, GitHub imports pull all recipes from recipes/, and memory is stripped on import. The 'local-only' parenthetical is slightly ambiguous, but the description still discloses meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, explains the two source variants, then gives the save location and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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 single-parameter import tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the source format, destination, and a notable side effect. It is slightly incomplete around overwrite behavior, return value, and the exact meaning of 'local-only', but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning to the single 'source' parameter by explaining the exact GitHub syntax, the recipes/ subdir rule, and the local path requirement for recipe.yaml. This goes beyond the schema's short parameter description.

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 verb 'import' and the resource 'recipe', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like neuron_recipe_create and neuron_recipe_export. It also specifies two distinct source modes (GitHub and local path), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description gives concrete context for when to use the GitHub form versus the local path form, including expected source formats and the recipes/ subdir convention. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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