Draft recipe from technique

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

The description explicitly says 'Read-only' and 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge,' which adds safety context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It also clarifies the input scope ('embedded' technique) and the nature of the operation (conversion to a draft). This goes beyond simple annotation repetition, though it doesn't cover error paths or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the safety annotation ('Read-only') and then states the action and output. Every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 provides clear purpose and safety profile, and the output schema covers return values. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over sibling recipe-drafting tools, and it doesn't discuss failure modes (e.g., what happens if conversion fails, which is relevant to the strict parameter). Given the overall complexity (10 params, output schema), it is adequate but not fully exhaustive.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, each with meaningful details. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to; the schema already provides the necessary information. The only minor addition is the inference that include_glsl_code relates to the 'GLSL source' mentioned in the description.

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 verb and resource: 'convert an embedded TouchDesigner technique with GLSL source into a RecipeSchema draft.' It also differentiates from siblings like draft_recipe_from_operator_chain and draft_recipe_from_tutorial by specifying the source type (embedded technique with GLSL). The 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge' adds scope precision.

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 drafting recipes from embedded techniques, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like draft_recipe_from_operator_chain or draft_recipe_from_tutorial. No when-not conditions or alternative guides are provided, so it relies on the reader to infer the appropriate context.

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