ptfx_unpack

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description goes beyond them by specifying the exact side effects on disk: a <name>.ypt.xml file directly in out_dir and a subdirectory <name> containing the embedded .dds textures. That file-layout disclosure is genuinely useful for a write tool. It does not mention overwrite behavior or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and conversion direction, then the output layout. Every clause carries information; the placeholder notation is dense but unambiguous. Nothing to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of describing what is produced and where. For a two-parameter conversion tool this is nearly complete; the remaining gap is the default/required behavior of out_dir and any overwrite semantics.

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 50%: 'ypt' is documented as an absolute path, but 'out_dir' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by showing how out_dir is used to construct output paths, but it never states what happens when the optional out_dir is omitted (default location) or whether it must exist. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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 ('Convert') and both ends of the transformation (.ypt -> CodeWalker XML), plus the exact output artifacts. It implicitly separates itself from the inverse operation (ptfx_pack) by naming the conversion direction, though it never names a sibling. Clear enough to select without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for going from .ypt to XML, as opposed to ptfx_pack/ptfx_edit. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement (e.g., whether out_dir must already exist, or whether the source .ypt must be unpacked first).

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