mac_recipe_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful behaviors: JSON-safe placeholder substitution, unique-name failure on re-save, and runtime security sandboxing. However, it omits any success-return behavior or post-save side effects, so coverage is partial.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and uses a compact bulleted 'Limitations' section. The long JSON example is justified because it demonstrates the complex nested object structure and parameter binding. It could be tighter but the length is earned.

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 is fairly complete for a save tool: it covers the purpose, provides a full example of a valid recipe, and notes key constraints. No output schema exists, so a brief statement about return values or success confirmation would improve completeness, but the current description covers most operational needs.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing a concrete example of how the 'parameters' array connects to '{{param}}' placeholders in steps, and explains JSON-safe substitution, making parameter usage clearer.

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 opening sentence 'Save a multi-step automation as a named recipe' uses a specific verb and object, clearly distinguishing this from sibling recipe tools (run, export, import, search). The example further reinforces the purpose by showing a complete recipe structure.

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 implies usage for creating/saving named recipes and gives an illustrative example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion guidance. It mentions limitations (unique names, sandboxing) but no when-not-to-use criteria.

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