Write AgentParcel-apps.zip

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds real value beyond them: append-on-collision naming ' (2)' (which explains the non-idempotent hint concretely) and the fail-if-too-large behavior. It stops short of saying what the return value contains or where parts land.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the artifact and destination, then adds collision and size-limit behavior. No filler.

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 no-output-schema write tool, the description covers destination, contents, collision behavior and size failure modes. The one gap is what is returned (paths/names of written files, whether multiple parts are produced), which matters given the 'parts' language and sibling splitting tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds the important semantic that max_mb/max_bytes cause a failure rather than a silent split. Slight tension with the schema wording 'Max size of each part', which suggests multi-part output, but the extra fail-fast semantics still earn above baseline.

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 concrete verb and artifact: writes AgentParcel-apps.zip into output_dir, and enumerates the contents (Windows/Mac/Linux builds, this MCP server, HOW TO REBUILD.txt). It is clearly distinct from split_*/verify/rebuild siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'so a human who receives parts can rebuild them' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to siblings like split_zip or rebuild. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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