mix_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: the original tab is restored and media is excluded. It omits what a 'recipe' file contains, what dry_run does, and whether rebuild overwrites anything — meaningful gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the three operations and followed by the two behavioral caveats. No padding, though the clause order puts the caveats after the action list rather than attaching them to the relevant actions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage — the description must do all the work but only partially does. It never says what a capture/diff/rebuild returns, what the path points to, or what dry_run changes, leaving an agent unable to call this reliably beyond the action name.

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 compensate. It usefully disambiguates the three action enum values against their operations, but leaves 'path' (recipe file? project path?) and 'dry_run' entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (a 'mix recipe') and enumerates the three operations — capture, compare, rebuild — which map cleanly onto the action enum. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_mix_snapshot and compare_tracks, though 'mix recipe' itself is never defined, so the resource remains slightly abstract.

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 three actions imply their own usage contexts, but the description never says when to choose this over the nearby alternatives (get_mix_snapshot, compare_tracks, verify_change) or what prerequisites a recipe path requires. Usage is inferable from the enum, not stated.

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