aiworkhub_manager_recipe_seed_canonical

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 discloses idempotency ('already_registered', row left untouched), selective installation based on toolchain_authority, and reporting of 'withheld' entries with reasons. It stops short of permission/auth requirements and error behavior.

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 response is front-loaded with 'MANAGER WRITE: install...' and each subsequent paragraph adds behavioral detail rather than repeating metadata. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a manager write operation.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description supplies the necessary behavioral context for selection and idempotency. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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?

Zero parameters are defined and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to explain.

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 ('install') and resource ('catalogue of this repository's own invocations'), and lists the concrete entry types it covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as recipe_register or recipe_seed_plan, so sibling discrimination is left implicit.

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 idempotency and per-project conditional behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives such as recipe_seed_plan for preview or recipe_register for individual entries. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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