dl_compile_recipe

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the useful fact that it writes only a local artifact and never touches DataLens, but does not explain what gets written, whether it overwrites a previous artifact, or any auth/permission needs.

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?

A single compact clause that is front-loaded with the core action and ends with the key constraint. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter surface.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with a nested object, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no help understanding bindings, the output artifact location, or what a successful compile returns.

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% across 6 parameters including a nested 'bindings' object, and the description mentions none of them. The required recipe_id/bindings and optional reference/output_dir/presentation/project_root are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for 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: 'Compile a typed recipe to a compact local artifact reference,' and distinguishes itself from the DataLens-centric siblings by noting it never accesses or writes DataLens. It is clear what the tool produces, though 'artifact reference' and 'typed recipe' remain somewhat jargon-y.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites (it implies a recipe_id and bindings must already exist, but says nothing about where they come from). The 'never access or write DataLens' note implicitly frames scope but is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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