Create package

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing default values applied to omitted limits, the auth/account requirement with the concrete 403 failure mode, and an environment-level availability restriction. It does not say what is returned or what happens on a duplicate name, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraints packed tightly behind it. Every clause carries an actionable fact.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotation-covered safety profile, the description supplies defaults, auth scope, and availability caveats. The remaining gap is return/duplicate behavior, which is not covered by an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by supplying the defaults that the schema entirely omits (quota 1 GB, 1 domain, 100 mailboxes, 100 forwarders, 10 domain pointers). That is real added meaning an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 ("Creates a package") that maps cleanly onto the create_package name and separates it from list_packages/get_package/update_package/delete_package siblings. The reseller-only qualifier further narrows it, though the description never explains what a 'package' contains beyond the limit fields.

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?

Explicitly scopes the caller: reseller accounts only, regular accounts refused with a 403, and unavailable while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form. That is strong when-to-use/when-it-fails guidance, but no alternative is named (e.g., pointing to update_package for later changes).

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