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

Annotations already flag destructive, open-world, idempotent and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: per-mode effects, the fact that published details may be copied to public GitHub and prior copies can persist, the unlisted default for new pipelines, and the auth requirement (normal org/workspace access, not platform admin). This is exactly the irreversibility and side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive toggle.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by mode semantics, side effects, and scope exclusions in a logical order. It is on the long side (seven sentences), but nearly every sentence adds decision-relevant information rather than restating the name.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description still covers everything an agent needs: mode behavior, defaults, public-copy side effects, permission requirements, and explicit exclusions. Nothing material is missing for a three-parameter destructive toggle.

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 carry parameter meaning. It fully explains the semantically important parameter, enumerating what 'on', 'off' and 'inherit' mean, but says nothing about pipeline_id or workspace_id beyond their self-evident names. Partial compensation for the coverage gap justifies a mid score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set whether a pipeline participates in Factory's Public Directory') and immediately scopes the action with 'only when the user requests it'. No sibling tool (get_pipeline, open_pipelines, run_pipeline) touches directory visibility, so the agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition ('only when the user requests it') and spells out what each visibility mode does, plus a list of things it does NOT do (admin curation, build-conversation sharing, data collection, schedules). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or a when-not-to-use scenario beyond the user-request constraint.

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