export_asset_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes files to a directory, must not invent SVG paths, never dumps base64 images, and that agents must read files from the pack. However, it does not mention potential overwriting of existing files or required permissions.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the key purpose. It could be slightly more concise by removing the imperative 'Agents must read/copy files from the pack.' but overall it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes return values (manifest summary, absolute outputDir, policy banner) and outlines the directory structure. However, it does not explain interactions between boolean flags or performance considerations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it merely restates the output structure. No parameter-specific elaboration is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'THE agent packaging tool. Writes a directory with MANIFEST.json, AGENTS.md...'. It lists specific output files and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the primary packaging tool.

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 by describing the output, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_node_assets or export_design_spec. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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