recipe_run

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

The description usefully discloses the fixpoint behavior ("repeated until stable") and that application is a separate step. However, the schema's dry_run parameter states "recipe.run never writes," while the annotation declares readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile the agent receives is internally inconsistent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the action, its result, its iteration semantics, and the follow-up step. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the call-and-apply workflow for a 4-parameter tool, but with no output schema it leaves the shape of the "batch proposal" undefined and never resolves whether the underlying document is touched during the run. Adequate but with real gaps for an agent deciding how to proceed after the 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%, so doc, recipe, dry_run, and definition are all documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the workflow reference to batch. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource (run a recipe) plus an explicit statement of what is produced (a batch proposal) and how it is consumed (apply with batch). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings recipe_list and batch, since it names batch as the applying step rather than doing the write itself.

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 gives the workflow context: run here to get a proposal, then apply with batch, which tells the agent this is a non-applying, proposal-generating step. It does not state exclusions, e.g., when to skip it and go straight to batch, or when to prefer an inline definition over a stored recipe.

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