Write a LibPkg project

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by clarifying that only the project source is generated and that compiling to a binary .IntLib is deferred to Altium Designer. However, it does not disclose whether an existing file at the target filepath would be overwritten or what side effects may occur, leaving a minor transparency 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and resource, the second explains path semantics, and the third clarifies the boundary of the operation with the user's next step. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the object being written, how document paths are interpreted, and the fact that compilation is not part of this operation. The main omissions are explicit overwrite behavior and direct routing to sibling tools, but annotations and the overall description keep this mostly complete.

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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that member documents are referenced relative to the .LibPkg location and that same-folder files become bare names, which helps the agent construct correct document paths.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Write an Altium Library Package (.LibPkg) project file that groups source library documents.' It clearly distinguishes this container-level tool from sibling tools like write_schlib and write_pcblib by targeting the project file rather than individual library documents.

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 clearly states the context: this tool groups .SchLib/.PcbLib documents so they can be compiled into an .IntLib, and it explicitly notes that only project source is generated while compilation is a separate Altium Designer action. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a 'when not to use' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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