Get Recipe Revision Authoring

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the snapshot is frozen, the published revision remains unchanged, legacy revisions without authoring state return an explicit unavailable error, and the tool does not create or fit anything. This meaningfully informs an agent about side effects, limits, and error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core read action, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: describing the resource, giving the primary usage workflow, and noting error behavior. There is no padding or repetition of schema details.

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 the output schema exists and annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, the description covers the main usage flow and an important edge case (legacy revisions). It could be slightly more explicit about what 'authoring state' means and how the snapshot maps to create_recipe_draft, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 for the undocumented recipe_id and number parameters. It indirectly implies that 'number' refers to a revision number and that 'recipe_id' identifies the recipe, but it never explicitly defines either parameter's meaning, format, or relationship to the returned snapshot.

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 names a specific action ('Read a frozen authoring snapshot') and a specific resource type ('published draft revision'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from mutating or creating tools with 'Does not create or fit anything.' This clearly separates it from siblings like get_recipe_revision while stating its scope.

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 description specifies that the snapshot should be used with create_recipe_draft to edit a new copy, giving an explicit workflow and intended context. It also warns about legacy revisions returning an unavailable error, but it does not name alternative tools for cases where authoring state is not needed, such as get_recipe_revision.

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