package_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short: it does not state required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, whether an existing package is overwritten, or what 'versioned' implies for repeated calls. The presence of a request_id strongly suggests idempotency semantics, yet the description never explains this. The only disclosed behavior is that a ZIP is produced.

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 no filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter mutation tool, but the deficiency lies in coverage, not in verbosity.

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 an artifact-producing tool with zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and a nested object parameter, the description omits too much: idempotency behavior, overwrite semantics, and the meaning of request_id are all left to inference.

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% and all four parameters carry only bare titles. The phrase 'caller-selected exact shot versions' loosely maps to shot_versions and 'episode' to episode_id, but project_root and request_id receive no explanation at all, and the expected shape of the shot_versions map (version strings keyed by shot) is left unstated.

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 (package), a clear resource (episode), the input granularity (caller-selected exact shot versions) and the artifact produced (versioned episode ZIP). However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this from the sibling package_asset, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to package an episode versus when to package an asset, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely named sibling package_asset. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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