build_lang_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the overwrite safety requirement (confirm: true), the source directory, and the install destination, but omits permissions, failure modes, and whether the zip is created fresh each time.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, followed by the critical overwrite condition. No wasted words.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the core action and overwrite confirmation but does not explain three parameters or describe the resulting artifact or error behavior.

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 the description must compensate. It explains slug indirectly through the source path and clarifies confirm's meaning, but leaves packName, description, and instanceId undocumented, leaving most parameters ambiguous.

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 and resource: build a resource pack zip from a given source path and install it into an instance's resourcepacks. Clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like extract_lang or check_lang_consistency, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Implies this should be used after translation output exists under lang-work/<slug>/translated and notes that overwriting requires confirm: true. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over extract_lang or check_lang_consistency, nor does it spell out prerequisites.

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