recipe_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform behavioral traits. It only states that a recipe is saved, but does not disclose whether it overwrites, requires authentication, has side effects, or any rate limits. The cut-off sentence fails to add context beyond the basic action.

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 incomplete sentence ('to this...'). It lacks front-loading of critical info and is not well-structured. Even if complete, it would be minimal, but the truncation makes it ineffective.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should comprehensively explain the tool's operation. It fails to specify how to input the recipe, what the output is, or any constraints (e.g., naming rules, size limits). The cut-off text exacerbates this gap.

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?

The input schema is empty (no parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions a 'named recipe' with parameters, but does not explain how the recipe is provided (e.g., via context or a separate mechanism). Since there are no formal parameters, the description could clarify the implicit input; it does not, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool saves a reusable SKILL (recipe) with explicit definition of a recipe as an ordered sequence of LMCP tool calls with parameters. It is specific about the resource and action, and the name 'recipe_save' aligns with sibling family. However, the description is cut off at 'to this...', slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use save versus related tools like recipe_import, recipe_install, or recipe_run. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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