Draft recipe from tutorial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge' and 'conservative operator chain'. These behavioral traits (in-memory draft only, no bridge interaction, conservative extraction) are not redundant with 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, constraints, and output without any filler. Every phrase adds information: 'Read-only', 'conservative operator chain', 'embedded tutorial', 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge'.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what it does, the read-only nature, the source (tutorial), and the output format (RecipeSchema JSON). The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the description adds the key limiting behaviors. No critical context is missing.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, but given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('extract', 'draft'), resource ('embedded TouchDesigner tutorial'), and output ('RecipeSchema JSON'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like draft_recipe_from_operator_chain or draft_recipe_from_technique by the 'tutorial' source. The read-only modifier and 'without writing files or touching the TD bridge' further clarify the scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have an embedded tutorial and want to draft a recipe schema, emphasizing a conservative, read-only process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'from tutorial' phrasing provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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