mod_pack

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'after validation' as a prerequisite but does not detail what the tool destroys or other behavioral traits (e.g., file overwrites, required permissions). Moderately transparent.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.

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, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers the basic action but omits what 'correctly rooted' means and what validation is performed. Adequate but has gaps for a destructive build 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 0% so description must compensate. The description only mentions 'Mod Name' but does not explain what mod_name represents (e.g., identifier, path, display name) or how it is used in building the zip. Insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 clearly states it builds a correctly rooted BeamNG zip after validation. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('BeamNG zip'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mod_validate (validation only) and mod_install (install only).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage 'after validation' but does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or name sibling tools. The agent receives no comparative context.

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