Get Recipe Draft

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context: the response is a complete snapshot with a concurrency version, edits should preserve all fields, and the draft is not an executable recipe.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct information: action, editing directive, and state warning. It is front-loaded with the core read operation and contains no 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?

Given a single obvious parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations, the definition covers the important non-obvious semantics: completeness, concurrency, and draft validity. It could go further by explaining how the concurrency version should be used when updating, but this is not essential for a read tool.

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?

The input schema has no property description and the tool description never mentions draft_id, so it doesn't compensate for 0% schema description coverage. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how to obtain or format the ID.

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 first sentence uses a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('complete authoring snapshot and concurrency version'), going well beyond the tool's title. It also distinguishes the draft-read operation from siblings like get_recipe_draft_template or publish_recipe_draft by emphasizing completeness and draft state.

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 instruction 'Preserve all fields when editing' provides real guidance for a read-then-edit workflow, and the warning that drafts are unvalidated authoring data sets expectations. However, it never names sibling tools or explicitly states when to choose get_recipe_draft over get_recipe_draft_template, get_recipe_revision_authoring, or list_recipe_drafts.

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