Recipe Plan

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

readOnlyHint=false signals a mutating operation, and 'freeze' is consistent with that (no contradiction). However, the description never explains what 'freeze' actually does behaviorally — whether it persists a plan, returns a handle, or mutates remote state — nor does it note the allowlist constraint's failure mode. It adds some context but leaves the core behavior opaque.

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 tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it arguably omits useful routing context rather than being wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation hint. But for a nested-object tool with an idempotency_key and a planning/starting workflow, the description is too thin on when to call it relative to recipe_start to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single top-level 'request' object is fully documented in the schema, including the nested max_duration_seconds note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States specific verbs (validate, freeze) and a specific resource (an exact config for an allowlisted Cookbook recipe). An agent can distinguish it from recipes_list/recipe_get, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, recipe_start, so the boundary between planning and starting is left implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must the recipe appear in recipes_list first?), and no routing to alternatives like recipe_start. The pre-execution intent is only implied by the word 'validate'.

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