Export recipe bundle

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: unknown IDs appear in 'missing' rather than being silently substituted, and it discloses the return payload (bundle kind, version, timestamp, exported recipes, missing IDs). It does not explicitly discuss file overwrite semantics, but the destructive hint covers that risk.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, conditional logic, sibling guidance, and return value summary. Ideal density.

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, the presence of a full output schema, and rich annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It covers all decision points, error handling (missing IDs), and output essentials without needing to restate schema details. The agent can select and invoke this tool correctly with no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameter semantics by explaining the conditional interaction: when include_all=true, recipe_ids is ignored; unknown IDs are surfaced in 'missing'. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and clarifies the actual runtime behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+output: 'Write a portable JSON recipe bundle to out_file.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming import_recipe_bundle (restore) and publish_recipe_bundle (checksums/versioned artifacts), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use import_recipe_bundle to restore the bundle on another machine or publish_recipe_bundle when you need checksums/versioned handoff artifacts.' Also clarifies the include_all/recipe_ids selection logic, so the agent knows exactly how to invoke the right option.

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