run_asset_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that a dry-run plan is a possible result, but it never states the side effects of actually running a recipe, whether running is destructive, or what happens to output files.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core action and the dry-run alternative in minimal space.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this one-line description is too sparse. An agent cannot confidently determine parameter semantics, return values, or behavioral side effects before invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'recipe' and 'dry_run'; width, height, max_colors, input_filenames, and output_filename remain unexplained beyond their names and types.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Run one compact asset recipe' and adds the alternative dry-run behavior. It is intelligible on its own, but it does not differentiate the tool from the closely named sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_asset_recipe, create_asset_recipe, or create_asset_preset. It does not state when a dry run should be chosen over an actual run.

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