recipe

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: 'id' replaces an existing board instead of adding one, 'note' places text at the top, 'title' replaces the recipe's title. However it says nothing about what happens with an unknown recipe name, whether the board is persisted/shown, or what the call returns.

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?

Tight, front-loaded opening sentence followed by routing and per-parameter notes; nearly every clause carries information. It is dense to the point of being cryptic in places ('quote only figures you have read'), but no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, and the tool creates/replaces persisted boards with a nested params object. The description covers the parameter semantics but omits error behavior for unknown recipe names and any indication of the result of a successful call, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 only 20% (only 'id' is described inline), but the description compensates well: it explains name (the recipe), params ('its values, lists as arrays'), note (text at the top, only quote figures you have read), and title (replaces the recipe's). Only the nested param value constraints and the replace semantics interplay are left thin.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Draw a ready-made board in one call' from a named recipe, and contrasts it with the sibling 'draw', which 'makes new kinds of boards'. An agent can differentiate the two without opening schemas, though what a 'recipe' actually is remains implicit (a saved board template).

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 routing: 'Use one whenever it fits the question; draw makes new kinds of boards' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also covers the empty-state case ('No recipes yet: draw with save_as adds one'), though it never says when *not* to use a recipe beyond preferring draw for new board kinds.

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