interchange_save_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description corroborates idempotence while adding real context: it writes 'dirty or not', saved=false forces failure with save_error carrying the cause, and the PIE/read-only-root refusals. This goes beyond the flags, though it leans on the annotation-provided safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the write action and outcome contract in the first sentence, followed by prerequisites, reversibility, and constraints. Dense but every clause carries information; the run-on structure is the only mild cost.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (pipeline_path, file_path, saved, save_error?), the failure semantics, ordering relative to sibling tools, and execution constraints – everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the single parameter is already documented as an object path. The description reinforces the load semantics (LoadObject, must be UInterchangePipelineBase) and adds that a non-pipeline path is an error, clarifying valid input beyond the schema.

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-and-resource (write/save the package of an Interchange pipeline asset over its .uasset), and explicitly positions itself against named siblings interchange_create_pipeline_asset and interchange_set_pipeline_properties. An 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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the persist step after' the create/set tools that 'change memory only', and names concrete blocking conditions (refuses during PIE and under a read-only root). This is clear when-to-use plus when-it-fails guidance.

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