Add, change, move or remove a recipe line

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

With no annotations supplied, the description discloses reference validation, full line readback, automatic MergeLowPriority re-cooking, output disappearance after removal, before-and-after coverage reporting, and deferred background cooking after group or preset changes. It also explains that a newly disabled line never cooks and that preview returns planned commands, making both destructive and deferred effects unusually visible before invocation.

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 purpose and compact action syntax are front-loaded, and essentially every sentence conveys operational information rather than repeating structured fields. However, the long single paragraph and dense brace-and-semicolon notation reduce scannability; short action and behavior sections would be easier to use.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with nested targets, no annotations, and no output schema, it covers preconditions, per-action invocation, validation, verification results, automatic and deferred side effects, exclusions, alternatives, and preview behavior. The few remaining addressing details are reasonably recoverable from the schema, so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Beyond the 64%-covered schema, it maps parameters to each action, explains the otherwise undocumented enabled and preview behavior, and clarifies values formatting, null clearing, and the practical rejection of numeric preset values. The shorthand set {line, ...fields} and the lack of explicit examples for alternative nested target forms leave small gaps, but the description substantially compensates for the schema.

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 opening sentence precisely identifies the operation, resource, scope, and precondition: editing one standard recipe line of an existing preset or cue part. It then distinguishes all four actions and later excludes phaser lines, filters, and per-line MAtricks columns, clearly separating this tool from its recipe-related siblings.

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?

Explicit exclusions route bulk cue editing and per-line column work to gma3_store_recipe_cues, while immediate verified cooking is routed to gma3_cook_recipes. Action-specific requirements, the existing-target precondition, and the distinction between automatic background cooking and immediate cooking provide concrete selection guidance.

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