Publish recipe bundle

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

Annotations already indicate destructive hint and open world. Description adds context: it's a filesystem write tool, returns artifact paths and checksums, and highlights that overwrite=false protects existing artifacts and missing ids are reported. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each essential. First sentence states purpose and specific files. Second explains key parameters. Third lists return values. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates return values (artifact paths, checksums, etc.). Parameters well covered. Could add more on error handling or side effects, but adequate for a mutation tool with good annotations.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds meaning: explains `name` becomes filename after sanitization, `overwrite` protects artifacts when false, `include_all` vs `recipe_ids` behavior, and mentions missing ids in output.

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 clearly states it writes local, versioned recipe-bundle publish artifacts (three specific files). It distinguishes from siblings like export_recipe_bundle and import_recipe_bundle by focusing on the publish process with checksums and missing ids.

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?

Mentions use for CI upload or handoff. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear and the sibling list provides differentiation.

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