Draft recipe from operator chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds specific context beyond that: 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge'. This clarifies the non-destructive and non-interactive nature of the tool, which is valuable context not fully captured by the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the most important information ('Read-only') and clearly states the action and output. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, read-only nature, and output being a 'draft', which is sufficient for an agent to understand the high-level behavior. It does not mention error cases or strict mode, but those are covered by the schema and parameters.

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 high (78%), and the description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. The only mention of 'ordered TouchDesigner operator chain' aligns with the 'chain' parameter description in the schema, so the description adds no new semantic value for parameters.

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 converts an 'ordered TouchDesigner operator chain' into a 'RecipeSchema draft', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_recipe_from_technique or draft_recipe_from_tutorial by focusing on operator chains as input.

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 by framing the operation as 'Read-only' and noting it avoids writing files or touching the TD bridge, which suggests safe use for conversions without side effects. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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