package_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It discloses only the output artifact type (versioned ZIP); it does not state where the ZIP is written, whether the operation requires specific permissions, whether it mutates project state, or whether it is idempotent across repeated request_id values.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping constraint ('one exact ... version') leads. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter, all-required mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the input contract, permissions, and side effects unexplained. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 all five required parameters are undocumented in the schema, and the description only loosely gestures at asset_type/asset_id/version via 'character or shot version'. project_root and request_id receive no explanation at all, leaving half the contract opaque.

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 (package), a precise resource (one exact character or shot version), and the outcome (a versioned ZIP). It is distinguishable in kind from the many sibling create/render/inspect tools, though it does not explicitly name its closest sibling package_episode to disambiguate the asset-level vs episode-level scope.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The word 'exact' hints at a precision requirement for version selection, but an agent is not told when packaging is appropriate versus promote_version or archive_version.

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