write_pack_mcmeta

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds context beyond that: the directory is created if needed, an unverified format guess is refused rather than written, and the return is a `workflow_manifest.v1` (kind `minecraft_pack`). It stops short of describing overwrite behavior for an existing pack.mcmeta, which is the main gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a clean Args block and a return note. The 'unverified guess... rejected as incompatible... refused rather than guessed' clause is slightly verbose but carries real behavioral weight, so most sentences earn their place.

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 destructive file-writing tool with no output schema, the description covers creation side effects, the format-resolution failure mode, cross-version support, and the return manifest. The only meaningful omission is the `overwrite` and `description` parameters, leaving the truncation story incomplete.

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?

With only 29% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for 5 of 7 params: pack_root (created if needed), mc_version (a known version, defaults to 1.21.1), pack_format (overrides mc_version, required outside the known table and why), and supported_min/max (inclusive supported_formats range with its effect on cross-version loading). It omits any mention of `overwrite` and `description`, which is why it isn't a 5.

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 (write) and exact artifact (`<pack_root>/pack.mcmeta`), then explains what that artifact does ('makes a directory a resource pack'). This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling write_texture_mcmeta and the other mcmeta tools 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?

There is partial conditional guidance ('pack_format required for versions outside the known table'), but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of when to prefer write_texture_mcmeta, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is largely implied by the mount path.

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