assets_package

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers real value: it states that all package files are published together (atomicity) and that existing files are never overwritten (safety/no-clobber). It still omits what happens on a revision mismatch, permission needs, or whether the output directory must pre-exist.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place, with the core product statement front-loaded and the atomicity/no-overwrite guarantee following immediately. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is produced and the mutation safety profile. However, four required parameters with zero schema documentation leaves a real gap for an agent about to call this write-style tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'revision manifest' loosely hints at expectedRevision's concurrency role; path, workspaceId, outputDirectory, and the assetLicenses license/sourceUri pair are given no meaning, constraints, or format guidance.

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 gives a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('portable workspace-local SVG package') and even enumerates the package contents (document.svg, rewritten local assets, revision manifest). It is clear what the tool produces, though it never contrasts itself with likely-confusable siblings such as document_export or export_svg, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many export/document tools in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer that this is the packaging path versus a plain export.

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