Revise Study Recipe

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

It discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: immutable revision semantics, automatic inheritance of earlier versions, optional source_revision_id linking, expected_content_hash guarding with a 409 requiring fresh preview, and stale-edit rejection with 412. These are actionable and not inferable from the sparse annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct operational guidance without filler. The core concept 'immutable revision' is front-loaded, followed by inheritance, optional links, guards, error codes, and the correct workflow.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested specification and concurrency semantics, the description captures the essential workflow and failure modes effectively. The main gap is explicit differentiation from sibling creation/update tools and fuller meaning for name/reason, though the output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation.

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 description adds meaning for expected_version ('current recipe version'), source_revision_id ('same-study source recipe'), and expected_content_hash ('guards effective inputs; 409 requires a fresh preview'). However, it leaves recipe_id, name, and reason unexplained, and with only 14% schema description coverage, the compensation is partial.

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 states a specific action—'Create an immutable revision'—on a clear resource (study recipe). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_study_recipe by emphasizing immutability and versioning, and it references list_study_recipes for reconciliation, so the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 provides strong procedural guidance: reload list_study_recipes, reconcile changes, submit the current version, and never overwrite blindly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as create_study_recipe or update_recipe_draft, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.

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