recipe.desktop_speaker

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

The description mentions 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3', which adds some operational context beyond the all-false annotations, but it does not disclose what the command actually does, what side effects occur, or what output to expect. Because annotations are all false hints, the description still carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does not meet it.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The sentences mostly restate the command identity and generic requirements, so they do not earn their place as useful content.

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 an 8-parameter command with an output schema and a huge sibling toolset, this description omits the essential information an agent needs: what the recipe produces, how it should be used, and what its parameters mean. The description is far from complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, several parameters like `name`, `bevelWidth`, and `wallThickness` lack schema documentation, yet the description provides no parameter meaning at all. The description adds nothing to help an agent understand how to set geometry, dimensions, or other recipe inputs.

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 only restates the command name (`recipe.desktop_speaker`) and attaches generic metadata; it never states a verb, action, or resource such as 'creates a desktop speaker mesh'. This is closer to a tautology than a purpose statement, and it does not help an agent distinguish this recipe from the many sibling recipe tools.

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?

It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `blender_recipe_spear` or `blender_recipe_hard_surface_shell`. The line about 'per-request argument checks and session policy' is an invocation requirement, not a usage guideline.

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