Revise Study Recipe

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write (openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: immutability, automatic influence inheritance from earlier versions, the source_revision_id same-study linkage, the expected_content_hash guard with 409 semantics, and 412 on stale versions. These are exactly the concurrency and lineage traits an agent needs and that structured fields do not carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then optional params, then conflict codes, then the recommended workflow. Every sentence carries signal; the only cost is that the semicolon-heavy style makes it slightly harder to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the nested specification envelope is documented in the schema itself. The description fully covers the concurrency contract and workflow, leaving only the plain-identity parameters (recipe_id, name, reason) unaddressed.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains source_revision_id ('links a same-study source recipe') and expected_content_hash ('guards effective inputs'), but says nothing about recipe_id, name, reason, or expected_version beyond the stale-edit hint. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create an immutable revision.' Combined with the behavior notes (immutability, version guarding), an agent can tell this apart from create_study_recipe and refreeze_recipe_revision, though the siblings are never named explicitly. The purpose is unambiguous even without that routing.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow: 'Reload list_study_recipes, reconcile changes, then submit the current version; never overwrite blindly,' plus the stale-edit condition (412). This gives clear when-to-use context, but it never states when NOT to use it versus siblings like update_recipe_draft or refreeze_recipe_revision.

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