packages_user_save

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure; it does state that the operation can overwrite an existing package and that confirm is required, which are important mutation cues. However, it omits other behavioral details such as permission requirements, whether overwrite is destructive to existing settings, or response behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 output schema exists and all 10 parameters are explained, the core calling contract is covered. It would be slightly more complete if it clarified when overwrite occurs versus create, but the combination of description, schema, and output schema is sufficient for basic use.

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%, and the description compensates by defining every parameter: units (MB), allowed toggle values (ON|OFF), and the confirmation flag. The only blemish is that 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, which lists only name as required and gives confirm a default of false.

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 (create/overwrite) on a specific resource (user package), which makes the tool's function immediately clear. The user-package scope also separates it from reseller packages and other package-management siblings.

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 phrase 'Create or overwrite a user package' implies the usage context, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over packages_user_list, packages_user_delete, or reseller package APIs. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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