Recipe Start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and retry-safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by warning that the call 'may spend Tinker credits', a cost side effect not captured by annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the cost warning. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 explained. But for a mutation tool that costs credits, the description leaves parameter meaning (plan_id, idempotency_key) entirely unexplained and gives no indication of what happens on failure.

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% for two required parameters, and the description does not explain what plan_id references or how idempotency_key should be generated. With 2 undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb (submit/start) and resource (an official Cookbook recipe), which distinguishes it from sibling reads like recipes_list and recipe_get. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from recipe_plan or training_start, but the action is clear.

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 'reviewed official Cookbook recipe' implies a prerequisite state (the recipe must already be reviewed), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names when to prefer this over recipe_plan or training_start, nor any exclusion conditions.

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