Create Package

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the authentication mode requirement and the fact that unset limits fall back to API defaults. It does not say what happens on a duplicate package name or whether defaults are frozen or inherited at creation time, leaving a small gap.

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?

Purpose and the reseller-auth constraint are front-loaded and earn their place, but the middle sentence enumerating all five default values duplicates the schema descriptions verbatim and is pure redundancy. Two strong sentences padded by one expendable one.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile; purpose, defaults and auth mode are all addressed. The only missing piece is failure behavior (duplicate name, invalid quota) and how a created package is later assigned, which is minor for a straightforward create 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter description already states its own default (quota default 1, domains default 1, email_accounts default 100, domain_pointers default 10, email_forwarders default 100). The description's default list therefore restates schema content rather than adding meaning, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is right.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a package") and immediately defines what a package is for ("reseller users can be assigned to"), which separates it from create_reseller_user and from the list/get/update/delete_package siblings. An agent can decide between this and update_package without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a real precondition: it is a reseller-level operation and must be called while authenticated as the reseller, not while impersonating a user. That is actionable context an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing (e.g. "use update_package to modify existing limits"), so not a 5.

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