Materialize Recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds only that the write goes 'into the workspace' and does not disclose overwrite behavior, whether repeated calls create duplicates, or what happens if destination_path already exists.

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. However, for a three-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, it is under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what is produced, where the recipe comes from, or what workspace changes occur. Given the non-idempotent write behavior and partially documented schema, the description leaves important context missing.

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 33%, with workspace_root being the sole documented parameter. The description does not explain recipe_id, destination_path, or the relationship between them, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: writing a recipe schematic into the workspace. It is clear enough to identify the operation, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as materialize_reference_circuit or explain what a 'recipe schematic' means in this context.

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 materialize_reference_circuit or create_schematic. It also omits any prerequisites, such as whether the recipe must already exist or how destination_path should be chosen.

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