brewfather_apply_recipe_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool 'writes live Brewfather data,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also states the confirmation requirement. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, undo-ability), failure modes, or permission needs. This partial transparency warrants a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and a warning. Every clause adds value—the write intention and the confirmation gate are both critical. There is no fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to explain the parameter's purpose or where it comes from. It also lacks information about response format or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, this is inadequate. A 2 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, but it doesn't mention 'confirmationToken' at all. The description says 'after the user explicitly confirms' but gives no hint of what the token is or how to obtain it. The agent is left without guidance on the single required parameter. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('Create the recipe') and the context ('from a prior preview'). It distinguishes itself from sibling preview tools by explicitly noting it writes live Brewfather data, and the name itself suggests application of a preview. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling apply/update tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 an explicit condition: 'Only call after the user explicitly confirms that exact preview.' This tells the agent when to use it, and implies it should not be called without that confirmation. It doesn't reference alternative tools (like preview or update), but the condition is clear enough. A 4 is justified.

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