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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond them: recipes are shared and cannot be overwritten, so an agent knows a name collision will fail rather than silently replace.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with the immutability constraint as a compact trailing clause. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description covers scope, sharing, immutability, and the sibling handoff; only explicit alternative routing is absent.

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 100% and the property descriptions explain name format, {{param}} templating, step shape, and result_from defaulting. The description adds nothing about the 5 parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Save') plus resource ('a working pipeline under a name') and the follow-up action ('run it later with run_recipe'). Naming run_recipe lets an agent distinguish this from the run_* siblings without opening schemas.

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 establishes the save-then-run-later workflow and notes that saved recipes are shared rather than private, which frames when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming run_pipeline/discover as alternatives.

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