Apply recipe

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

The description reveals detailed behavioral steps: creating a baseCOMP, wiring nodes, exposing controls, auto-layouting, verifying, and previewing. It also describes the exact return structure (summary plus JSON block) and error handling for unknown ids. This goes well beyond the annotations, providing rich context without contradicting them.

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 compact yet comprehensive: three sentences cover the purpose, the creation process, and the return/error behavior. Each sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy, and key details are front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, two parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, how errors are handled, and even implies the prerequisite of listing recipes. There are no critical gaps.

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 documents both parameters (id, parent_path) with descriptions. The tool description adds extra meaning by referencing list_recipes for the id, clarifying parent_path as the destination COMP, and noting the friendly error for unknown ids. This supplements the schema coverage rather than merely repeating it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Instantiate') and resource ('built-in recipe by id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_recipes (which merely lists) and apply_lut (which applies LUTs). It also specifies the context ('inside a COMP') and the outcome ('creates a new baseCOMP').

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?

It explicitly mentions 'from list_recipes', implying the prerequisite workflow, and states that the result is a ready-made network to tweak. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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