Upload an OtaKit bundle

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is an unpublished bundle and that it reuses the existing zip/delta, metadata, version, and encryption workflow. It does not mention that repeat calls create new bundles (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what happens on partial failure.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the non-publishing constraint placed at the end as the key differentiator. Slightly dense with the list of internal workflows, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the unpublished outcome but says nothing about what is returned (e.g., a bundle identifier) or what to do next. The rich schema compensates for the parameter gaps, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all nine parameters, including defaults and enum meanings. The description only gestures at the concepts (zip/delta, version, encryption) without adding syntax, formats, or precedence rules beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Package and upload the selected local web build') and immediately differentiates itself from the closest sibling by ending with 'without publishing it', which is precisely what upload_and_publish_bundle does. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 'without publishing it' gives a clear selection condition against upload_and_publish_bundle, and 'the selected local web build' implies the prerequisite that a build already exists. It stops short of naming the alternative or listing when-not conditions explicitly, so it is not a full 5.

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