shorts_package

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful side-effect fact: it never posts. Beyond that, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether overwrite is destructive, what 'packaging' actually produces, or idempotency, which matters for a 5-param tool with a mutable output.

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 with the action front-loaded and the safety qualifier appended; every clause earns its place. It is perhaps overly terse given the unaddressed parameters, but the structure itself is clean.

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 means return values need not be explained, but for a 5-parameter packaging tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified: no parameter guidance, no usage context, and no detail on what packaging produces or its side effects.

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% across five parameters, and the description names none of them. plan_path_or_dir is only obliquely gestured at via 'saved plan', while candidate_id, overwrite, allow_fail, and package_root are entirely unelaborated in both schema and description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 ('package approved platform renders') plus the source ('from a saved plan'), which is clear enough to separate it from the shorts_render/shorts_review siblings. The closing 'Never posts' also distinguishes it from any publish tool. It lacks explicit sibling naming, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'from a saved plan' and 'approved renders' imply a late workflow stage, and 'Never posts' implies it is not the publishing step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing among close alternatives like shorts_render, shorts_review, video_review_package, or still_package.

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