start_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that start-time validation errors appear in the tool's response, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits other important details like whether the action is idempotent, what prerequisites (e.g., recipe must exist or be stopped) exist, and what a successful start returns.

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 two short sentences that immediately state the action and then add a valuable behavioral note about validation errors. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and a key behavior. However, it lacks details about success/failure return values, state prerequisites, and side effects, which would be needed for a fully unambiguous invocation. It is adequate but not exceptionally complete.

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 one required parameter, recipe_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the schema to stand alone. Although the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning, such as how to find the recipe_id or any constraints on its value.

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 verb ('Start (activate)') and clear resource ('a recipe'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinctively contrasts with sibling tools like stop_recipe and update_recipe by naming the activation action and adding the unique 'start-time validation errors' behavior.

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 implies when to use the tool (to activate a recipe and to read validation errors), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as stop_recipe or get_recipe. The usage context is only suggested through the phrase 'Start-time validation errors surface here,' without clear exclusions.

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