dl_compile_recipe

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

Adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: it is a local-artifact operation that 'never access or write DataLens', clarifying the scope of the write implied by readOnlyHint=false. Confirms idempotentHint implicitly. Does not disclose side effects on output_dir or failure 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?

Two tight clauses with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite follow-up second. Every clause earns its place; 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?

Covers the compile output type and the required upstream read, but for a 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool with low schema coverage it omits what output_dir/project_root control and what the returned artifact reference contains. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must guess.

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 17%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that bindings comes from recipe_contract.bindings_schema and by referencing 'distinct create/static/compiled-update inputs'. However it leaves reference, output_dir, presentation, and project_root entirely undocumented, so it does not fully bridge the coverage gap.

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+output: 'Compile a typed recipe to a compact local artifact reference.' The 'never access or write DataLens' clause implicitly distinguishes it from publish/write siblings. Clear purpose, though it does not name a specific sibling it could be confused with.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a prerequisite workflow step: 'First read dl_authoring_defaults(family=recipe_id).recipe_contract for bindings_schema...'. It names the sibling to call and what to extract from it, which is strong usage guidance. No explicit exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' statements.

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