os_qgis_export_geopackage_descriptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'resource-backed' context about the artifact, which is mildly informative but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output shape or relationship to delivery modes. No contradiction with 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 with no filler. It conveys the tool's core purpose in 13 words and does not duplicate schema or annotation information.

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 with 8 parameters, a 0% schema coverage, and a large sibling list, one sentence is under-specified. It omits guidance on the output descriptor's role, how delivery modes work, when to use this versus sibling descriptor tools, and what the read-only operation actually returns. The output schema exists, but the description alone does not provide enough 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% and the description provides no parameter-level semantics. Property names like sourceResourceUri, layerName, crs, and delivery are self-descriptive, but the interaction between parameters (e.g., delivery vs inlineMaxBytes, resource vs inline output) is left entirely to inference. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and did not.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('a QGIS GeoPackage import descriptor') and adds the qualifier 'for a resource-backed export artifact.' It is not a tautology and is more specific than sibling descriptor tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish itself from.

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 a resource-backed export artifact' implies a use condition: this descriptor is for artifacts exported as resources. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit comparison to sibling tools such as os_qgis_vector_tile_profile or os_offline_descriptor.

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