build_source_svg_delivery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that CAD database bytes are preserved and that the output consists of candidate review projects, but it does not cover write behavior, output directory handling, permissions, or whether existing outputs are overwritten.

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 two tightly written sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds meaningful scope and exclusion details without wasteful repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the tool requires three directory parameters with zero schema descriptions and has no annotations, and the description does not explain how those directories relate to the build process.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It references SVGs and a review package, which hints at the roles of assets and output, but it does not explain baseline_dir, assets_dir, or output_dir directly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: apply hash-bound source-instance SVGs to a new canonical review package. It also clarifies that the tool does not accept semantic interpretations or OSM matching revisions, which helps separate it from some sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other review/package builders in the sibling list.

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 gives a negative usage condition by saying what the tool does not accept, implying it should be used when working from hash-bound source-instance SVGs. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name the alternative sibling tools for review/package creation.

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