package_mod

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: OutputCopy items are honored, otherwise Plugins/<AssemblyName>.dll and .pdb are copied. It still omits whether an existing zip is overwritten, where the zip lands by default, and what happens if the build output is missing.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first and the conditional copy rule second. Domain jargon (OutputCopy, AssemblyName) is dense but precise for the audience.

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 seven-parameter packaging tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves most knobs unexplained; an agent cannot tell what configuration, artifact_dir, extra_files or include_manifest do. The output schema covers return values, but the input surface remains materially under-described.

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 seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: zip_dir, artifact_dir, extra_files, configuration and include_manifest are never mentioned. The pdb/.dll copy sentence only loosely gestures at copy_pdb and the OutputCopy override, without tying behavior to the parameter names.

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 concrete verb and artifact: 'Create a BeatMods-compatible release zip from an existing build.' The parenthetical about Plugins/... at the archive root pins down the layout. It never names build_mod or deploy_mod, so an agent must infer which sibling produces the 'existing build'.

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 'from an existing build' implies the prerequisite that a build must exist first, which indirectly routes the agent to build_mod beforehand. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of deploy_mod, and no statement about when a zip is or isn't appropriate.

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