Propose a pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains that each model is reviewed individually, the pack requires human approval, pending members become published only after approval, nothing goes live beforehand, and the user is emailed the outcome.

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 concise and well-structured, using clear sentences that convey the workflow, constraints, and outcome without unnecessary verbosity 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?

The description provides good context about prerequisites, review, approval, and email notification. It does not mention response format or error cases, but given there is no output schema and the workflow is clearly outlined, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The description only explains the assets parameter by referring to model slugs. It does not clarify the meaning or expected content of title, summary, or description parameters, leaving those to be inferred from the schema constraints alone.

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's purpose: grouping the user's own uploads into a pack proposal. It also distinguishes itself by referencing related upload tools and clarifying that these are proposals subject to review.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on the correct sequence: upload models first with finalize_upload or submit_asset_from_url, then pass the slugs. It also explains the review and publishing behavior, leaving little ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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