recipe

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

With no annotations covering this tool, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that inputs are validated at the door against the declared schema (typed units + ranges), that the build is deterministic, and that the build comprises geometry + publish_interface + declare_intent. It omits permissions/auth and failure/error behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense with little redundancy. The issue-number reference and the inline quote-equivalence are slightly noisy, but overall it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps up by enumerating the return object's fields ({recipe, schema, inputs, handle, name, interfaces, intent, part}) and the internal build steps. It is nearly complete for a build tool, missing only error/permission context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that {recipe, inputs} are validated against the recipe's declared schema with typed units and ranges, adding real meaning to 'inputs', but it never specifies the expected format of the required 'recipe' parameter (name vs. id vs. path), leaving a gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource — 'Build a registered part recipe into the active document' — and spells out the two-stage behavior (validate, then deterministic build). It implicitly distinguishes itself from recipe_validate/recipe_schema by noting it also runs the build, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'regenerate with new parameters = re-run the recipe' clarifies the operating concept, and the validate-then-build framing lets an agent infer that recipe_validate is the validate-only alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the guidance is only implied.

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