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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with "decodes ... and returns," and the description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation: the WASM payload is deliberately excluded because it is "too large for the agent," and the connector reads it from disk. This discloses an out-of-band file dependency the annotation alone would not reveal.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the scope exclusion, then the sequencing instruction. No filler or repetition.

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 a fully documented schema and a simple readOnly annotation, the definition covers inputs, the boundary (no WASM), and the return (the deploy_package call to run). Minor gap: it does not describe what the decoded value looks like or how the connector call is structured, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents rpdHex, owner and network fully, including enums and defaults. The description re-characterizes rpdHex as a compiled .rpd Manifest SBOR but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (decodes) and resource (.rpd package definition / Manifest SBOR) and the output it produces (the value needed to publish a Scrypto package, plus the exact deploy_package call). This clearly distinguishes it from the other build_*_manifest siblings, which the agent can tell apart without opening schemas.

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?

"Use this before deploy_package" gives explicit sequencing guidance, and the note that WASM is not handled here clarifies scope. It does not name when-not to use it relative to the sibling build_* tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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