create_asset_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does disclose non-execution, determinism, and reviewability. However, it does not state whether composing creates or persists anything, what side effects occur, or what the tool 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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key intent and the execution boundary are front-loaded. Every word earns 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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so a single high-level sentence is not enough. The description leaves undefined what a 'recipe' returns, how seed, format, material, and direction influence it, and what the steps represent beyond their enum labels.

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% and the description provides no parameter-level meaning. All 8 parameters, including enums like steps, material, and direction, are left entirely to the schema's bare type and enum definitions.

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 and resource ('Compose ... multi-effect asset recipe') and adds a critical boundary: 'without executing it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like run_asset_recipe and execute_asset_recipe.

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 phrase 'without executing it' gives clear context for when to use this tool rather than an execution sibling, and 'reviewable' signals usage for planning or auditing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, which keeps it just below a 5.

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