Publish recipe bundle

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

The description openly discloses that 'This is a filesystem write tool' and explains the overwrite protection behavior, which complements the destructiveHint annotation. It also states what the return value contains (artifact paths, checksums, count, missing ids), adding useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. 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?

The description is compact (three sentences) and front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the output artifact names, the key parameter choices, and the return values. No redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, destructive annotations), the description covers all critical aspects: what files are produced, how to select content, the overwrite safeguard, and the return information. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results without additional documentation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explaining the selection modes (recipe_ids vs include_all) and overwrite behavior, which clarifies how the parameters interact rather than just repeating each field's schema description.

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 is highly specific: 'Write a local, versioned recipe-bundle publish artifact for CI upload or handoff' and enumerates the exact output files. It clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'export_recipe_bundle' or other bundle-related tools, so it misses the sibling-distinction criterion for a 5.

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 provides a clear context for use ('for CI upload or handoff') and gives practical guidance on how to select recipes ('Use recipe_ids for selected recipes or include_all=true for the whole library') and protect existing files ('overwrite=false protects existing artifacts'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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