save_pipeline_sql

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a plain write, that the SQL is already validated, that the return is a compact receipt deliberately excluding the SQL body, and that passing only sql leaves the graph untouched. This goes beyond minimal disclosure and is highly transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, a bullet list of negative instructions, and a section on return behavior. Each sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the critical warnings and usage guidance easy to parse.

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 (write-only, partial update, integration with approve_table_selection), the description is complete. It covers the input source, the exact behavior, the return receipt, and the stop-after-confirm instruction. The presence of an output schema means return details need not be fully expounded, and the description still mentions the receipt contents.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for sql and graph by specifying they come from approve_table_selection and must be passed byte-for-byte, and it explains partial update semantics. However, pipeline_id and version_id are not explicitly described, though their meaning is inferable from context.

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 the tool saves SQL and/or the visual pipeline graph onto a pipeline version, a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pipeline_sql and generate_pipeline_sql by emphasizing the write-only nature and the 'save' action.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it says to use get_pipeline_sql only if the SQL itself is genuinely needed later, and it lists explicit "do NOT" actions to avoid before/after the save. It also clarifies the partial update behavior, giving complete usage context.

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