Scaffold recipe template

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

The description adds 'Writes a file (destructive)' which restates the destructiveHint annotation but adds that it writes a file to disk. It also notes the template is RecipeSchema-valid. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the file already exists or how overwrite works.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action of writing a template file. Every sentence adds value, and there is no padding.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter guidance, overwrite behavior, and only hints at the recipe format. The mention of apply_recipe is helpful but insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but it names none of them. It does not explain id, name, out_file, or overwrite, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning from the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states the tool writes a minimal valid recipe JSON template to disk as a starting point. Distinguishes from similar scaffold tools by emphasizing hand-authored recipes, passing RecipeSchema, and the follow-up apply_recipe step.

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?

Provides clear usage context: use to bootstrap a hand-authored recipe that already passes RecipeSchema, then fill in nodes/connections and instantiate with apply_recipe. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like scaffold_recipe_from_network, but the hand-authored angle implies it.

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