brewfather_preview_recipe_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool does not write ('without writing it') and that it reports normalizations and rejections. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe the exact output format of the preview, leaving a minor gap for an agent to infer the response shape.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core action and the required sequencing, then adds relevant constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with a single rich parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it properly. The main omission is the exact shape of the response (what the preview returns), but given it's a validation step, the description communicates enough for correct invocation. A brief description of the return value would make it complete.

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 recipe parameter schema description is exceptionally detailed, covering common fields, metric units, color normalization (EBC vs lovibond), allowed misc units and aliases, and a warning about string tags. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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's purpose: 'Prepare and validate a new Brewfather recipe without writing it.' It uses a specific verb (prepare/validate) and resource (new recipe), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling apply tool by saying 'Always call this before brewfather_apply_recipe_create.'

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 explicit usage guidance: call this before the apply tool, and it warns about rejected inputs (string tags, unsupported miscellaneous units). It provides a clear ordering rule and constraints, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it versus alternatives.

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