package_ps2_iso

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the source tree and SYSTEM.CNF are left in place (non-destructive to the project), which is useful, but it says nothing about what happens to an existing outputIso, why a required 'confirm' gate exists, what external tooling must be installed, or what failure looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the side-effect note second; nothing is padded. It is arguably too short for a four-parameter mutation tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than 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?

For a tool that writes a binary artifact, with no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description is thin. An agent cannot confirm the meaning of 'confirm', the overwrite behavior of outputIso, or the distinction from build_ps2 without external knowledge.

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% across four required parameters. The description only indirectly touches elfPath ('authorized ELF') and projectRoot ('project tree'); outputIso, the destination path, and the mandatory boolean 'confirm' are never explained, nor are path format constraints (relative vs absolute).

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 and artifact ('Build a PS2 ISO') plus the inputs ('authorized ELF and project tree') and the underlying mechanism (mkisofs/genisoimage). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling build_ps2 or explain how it relates to iso_verify, so an agent must guess which packaging/build tool to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'authorized' hints at a precondition, but the description never says to prefer this over build_ps2, when iso_verify should run afterward, or whether the project must already have been generated via create_ps2_project/generate_ps2_project.

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