sd_export_package_sbsar

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is already known. The description adds the prerequisite that the package must already be saved ('one saved package') and that publication settings are explicit, which is useful context. However, it does not reveal overwrite behavior, side effects, or failure modes beyond what the parameters suggest.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It concisely conveys the core action and key differentiator. However, its extreme brevity leaves out necessary nuance that would make it more helpful, slightly reducing the score from perfect.

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?

Despite having an output schema and complex input requirements, the description does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or side effects. For a tool with 9 required parameters and a destructive hint, this level of detail is inadequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 0% schema description coverage and 9 required parameters, the description should compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only mentions 'explicit publication settings' in a general sense, providing no specific meaning for compression_mode, expose_output_size, or other fields. The agent would have to infer parameter semantics entirely from names and enums.

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 tool exports a saved package to .sbsar with explicit publication settings. This distinguishes it from siblings like sd_save_package, which saves in the native format, and sd_save_package_as, which likely saves without the .sbsar export focus.

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 description implies usage for exporting to .sbsar with publication settings, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No clear prerequisites or exclusions are provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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