Sign OPA bundle

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: the tool writes a '.signatures.json' file next to the bundle or updates the archive in place, providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous 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?

The description explains the output file behavior and side effects. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's effect. It could mention the need for a valid signing key, but this is already in the schema.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 it signs an OPA bundle with a private key using a specific command, and specifies the output behavior (writes .signatures.json or updates archive). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'opa_bundle_verify'.

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 context (signing a bundle) but does not explicitly list when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. It is clear enough that an agent can infer the purpose relative to sibling tools like 'opa_bundle_build' and 'opa_bundle_verify'.

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