octane_record_recipe

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (append) and target, indicating a write operation. However, it lacks details on file handling (e.g., if file is missing, append behavior on multiple calls) or any side effects.

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 very concise (12 words) but at the expense of essential information about parameters and usage. It does not earn its place because it fails to add value beyond a minimal statement of purpose.

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 has 6 parameters (including arrays and nullable values) and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output schema, parameter meanings, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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?

The description does not refer to any of the 6 input parameters (title, outcome, context, steps, signals, follow_ups). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no clue how to populate these fields, making the tool nearly unusable without additional knowledge.

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 clearly states the tool appends a compact success/failure note to a specific file (docs/recipe-book.md) for future agents. This distinguishes it from siblings like octane_load_recipe or octane_queue_recipe which deal with executing or reading recipes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this over other recipe-related tools.

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