Create Study Recipe

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

The description discloses non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: a content-hash mismatch returns 409 and requires a fresh preview, model_snapshot specifications are review-only, and source_revision_id preserves influence ancestry. These details materially improve an agent's ability to anticipate side effects and error conditions.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then groups optional parameters and specification variants logically so each sentence adds unique information.

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 complex tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral and parameter nuances. It could be more complete by referencing when a draft vs. a frozen recipe is appropriate, but the available annotations and output schema cover much of the remaining 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 low (17%), but the description compensates by explaining why source_revision_id and expected_content_hash are used and by clarifying the two specification kinds (api_mmm vs. model_snapshot). The remaining required parameters (study_id, name, reason) are left self-evident from their names, which is acceptable.

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 uses a specific action and object ('Freeze a recipe') and the qualifier 'without fitting' communicates the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its close siblings such as create_recipe_draft or revise_study_recipe, so an agent has to infer which one to choose.

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 gives clear conditional guidance for source_revision_id ('when deriving from a published same-study recipe') and explains the consequence of a mismatched expected_content_hash. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' statement, and with siblings like create_recipe_draft in the same domain, that is a meaningful gap.

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