Assemble all necessary print assets—fonts, linked files, and a report—into a single folder for production.
Package document for print production
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folderPath | Yes | Output folder path | |
| createReport | No | Create packaging report | |
| includeFonts | No | Include fonts | |
| confirmDestructive | No | REQUIRED: Confirm package creation | |
| includeLinkedFiles | No | Include linked files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the operation; it does not disclose side effects such as creating folders, copying fonts/linked files, potential overwriting, or the destructive implications hinted at by confirmDestructive.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with five parameters and no annotations, it is arguably under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
Given the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too terse. It does not explain what packaging involves, what confirmDestructive protects against, or what the agent should expect after 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 100%, so the input schema already explains each parameter clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Package') and resource ('document'), with a clear purpose ('for print production'). It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like export_pdf or preflight_document.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as export_pdf, preflight_document, or save_document. The phrase 'for print production' vaguely implies context, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.