mac_recipe_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly explains the conflict policy (skip, rename, replace) including the fact that 'replace' deletes the existing recipe first, and discloses limitations such as requiring exactly one of `bundle` or `inputPath` and enforced major version validation. This goes beyond basic description.

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 well-organized into sections (Examples, Conflict policy, Limitations), with each sentence providing useful information. It avoids fluff and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, conflict policies, and limitations. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns, which would be helpful for a complete picture. Overall, it is comprehensive but slightly lacking in return-value clarity.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description enriches them with concrete examples and detailed explanations. For instance, it illustrates how to use `onConflict` with the 'rename' policy and clarifies that `bundle` must be the inline object while `inputPath` must be a file path, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Import a .mac-recipe.json bundle (inline or file path)', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like export, save, run, and search by focusing on the import action.

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 description provides clear usage examples (from file, from file with replace, inline bundle) and explains the conflict policy options. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, the examples implicitly define its purpose, making the usage clear enough.

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