Attach docs as assets

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

While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds value by specifying it 'writes into the package folder (destructive)', clarifying what gets modified. It also describes the registration process, providing behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is two sentences and gets straight to the point, with the key action in the first sentence. The second sentence provides additional context without excessive verbosity.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and destructive nature. It omits parameter details but provides sufficient high-level guidance for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain each parameter's meaning or expected format (e.g., what is manifest_path, asset_dir default behavior). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool copies documentation files into a package and registers them in its manifest's docs list. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use case after make_portable_tox, making its purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use after make_portable_tox', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It implies bundling README or usage notes for portability, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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