renforge_web_build

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the web DLC requirement but does not mention side effects, whether existing files are overwritten, or the nature of the build output. This is insufficient for a build operation.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loaded with the action and the key requirement. It is appropriately concise and every word earns its place.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the destination parameter, potential side effects, or when this tool should be chosen over alternatives. The existence of an output schema mitigates some need to explain returns, but not the operational context.

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 0%. The description refers to 'the project' (implying project_path) but provides no explanation of the 'destination' parameter, leaving it ambiguous. With no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter information.

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 'Package' and the outcome 'browser-playable build', and adds the prerequisite 'needs the web DLC'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like renforge_distribute which may handle other distribution formats.

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 when a browser-playable build is desired, and mentions a prerequisite (web DLC) but does not provide alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use renforge_distribute instead. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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