sd_create_package

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds 'unsaved' to indicate no persistence to disk, but does not disclose side effects, return value, or any required preconditions like an active graph. Some behavioral context is provided, but it is not rich.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. 'through the official package API' is slightly redundant but not verbose. Every part contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose. However, it does not mention what happens after creation or how this relates to saving workflows, which would be useful but is not strictly required given the output schema and minimal complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any parameter documentation. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter meaning and does not.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('Designer user package'), and a key qualifier ('unsaved') that distinguishes it from save-related sibling tools like sd_save_package and sd_save_package_as. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 word 'unsaved' implies this tool is used to create a new, non-persisted package before saving, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The usage context is only implied, not clearly articulated.

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