recipe_write

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

The description discloses that the tool writes to disk (destructive) and performs normalization, plus returns a hash. However, no further behavioral details are given, such as error conditions, required permissions, or idempotency. Given the absence of annotations, the description partially fulfills the transparency burden.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the complexity of the tool, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

The tool has three required parameters (one nested object), no annotation coverage, and an output schema not described. The description fails to cover parameter meanings, usage context, or differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description adds no meaning to the three parameters (path, scope, recipe). With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to explain their semantics or format. The nested 'recipe' object especially needs clarification.

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 clearly states the tool writes a recipe to disk after normalization and returns a render_hash. This gives a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like recipe_mutate or recipe_normalize, which may perform similar actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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