Patch Expansion File

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

The description discloses that the tool uses patch (partial) semantics and associates an existing uploaded OBB with a new version code. However, with no annotations, it does not cover side effects such as overwriting an existing OBB association, preconditions like the referenced version needing an already-uploaded OBB, or reversibility. Some behavioral transparency is present, but gaps remain.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only useful context about when reuse is beneficial. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 covers the tool's purpose and the reuse scenario, and an output schema is present, so return values are not needed. However, it omits important behavioral context for a mutation-like operation: preconditions (referenced version must have an uploaded OBB), potential overwrite behavior, and any limitations. This leaves the agent without full guidance for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that version_code is the new version and references_version is the existing version with the uploaded OBB, but the schema already states this clearly. The description does not add significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Point a version's OBB at one already uploaded against another version.' It clearly explains the reuse behavior and contrasts it with re-uploading, which distinguishes it from upload_expansion_file. The tool's purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context: large apps reuse the same expansion file across builds, and this tool associates an existing OBB with a new version code instead of re-uploading. It implies the right scenario for use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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