create_solution_package

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

Annotations already signal a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds no behavioral insights beyond restating the purpose; it does not disclose side effects on the included update sets, required permissions, or result of the operation. It provides almost no value over 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. The embedded '[Write]' tag is redundant given the annotations, adding minor noise, but overall structure is compact.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what a solution package is, how 'selected update sets' are processed, what the response looks like, and any prerequisites or lifecycle implications. This leaves the agent under-informed for correct usage.

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 documentation covers 67% of parameters, leaving 'description' undocumented. The tool description does not mention any parameters or clarify their meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 action (create) and the resource (solution package from selected update sets), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_update_set or export_update_set by specifying the packaging/distribution purpose.

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 'for distribution' implies a packing use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.

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