apply_recipe

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

The description only says 'Run a named production recipe' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it modifies the input video, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to inform agents of the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, which is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description and schema together fail to provide complete context. With 0% parameter documentation and no behavioral notes, an agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool, especially with required parameters like 'video_path' undefined.

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?

None of the four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (0% coverage), and the description itself only provides examples for 'recipe_name'. Critical parameters like 'video_path', 'project_name', and 'max_render_frames' are left entirely unexplained, offering no additional meaning beyond their basic names and types.

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 states that the tool runs a named production recipe and provides specific examples like 'cyberpunk_talking_head', making the purpose easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_cut_plan' or 'run_intent', which might also involve applying transformations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_recipes' or other recipe-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where it should not be used.

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