get_edit_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the response includes the exact commands used to build the edit and the versions preceding it, which tells the agent the payload is large and historical rather than a snapshot.

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?

One dense sentence plus one short pointer sentence, with the core purpose front-loaded before the parenthetical detail. The list of recipe components is compact, though the trailing 'the versions before it' phrasing is slightly loose.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating what the recipe contains and noting that prior versions come with it, and the sibling pointer disambiguates from get_session. It still leaves unstated things like response size or how versions are keyed, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 100% and both parameters are well documented in the schema (including the 'hook' / 'hook-v4' / path forms and the default newest behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('The recipe of an edit') and then enumerates its actual contents (cut list, voice, layers, music, sfx, cover, checks, commands, prior versions). It also names the sibling get_session and clarifies that get_session is a 'short form of the newest one', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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 comparison to get_session ('shows a short form of the newest one') implies when to reach for this tool: when the full recipe or historical versions are needed. It stops short of an explicit 'use X when..., use this when...' rule or any exclusion, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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