Build OPA bundle

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns by mentioning building an archive with optional signing. It adds behavioral context (output format, signing) beyond annotations, though it could mention file overwrite risks.

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 covering purpose and features, no redundant words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing features), but overall efficient.

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?

With 10 params, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers main purpose and key features. Missing the constraint that entrypoints are required for wasm/optimize>0, but otherwise adequate.

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% with individual parameter descriptions. The description adds high-level context (optimization, revision, WASM) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Build), resource (OPA bundle), and methods (`opa build`). It distinguishes from sibling tools like opa_bundle_sign and opa_bundle_verify by specifying outputs and features.

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 deploying policies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rego_eval, opa_exec). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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