project_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description meaningfully adds that the output goes to a brand-new local directory, that revision history/caches/exports are deliberately excluded, and that the call is asynchronous ("Returns a job"). It stops short of saying whether an existing directory is overwritten or how long packaging takes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: action first, then exclusions, then return type. Nothing is redundant and the exclusions earn their place by preventing misuse as a full backup.

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?

The mutation and exclusion behavior is covered, but with no output schema the bare "Returns a job" leaves the agent without guidance on tracking the job through job_list/job_get. For a long-running packaging operation that writes to disk, that follow-up path and the overwrite behavior should be stated.

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 67%, with projectDir and expectedRevision already documented; the description's "in a new local directory" supplies the only hint about the undocumented bundleDir (it should be a fresh path). That is a modest value-add but no detail on path creation semantics or what happens if bundleDir already exists.

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?

Names a concrete verb ("Package") and an explicit resource set (current editable project plus registered media) plus a destination type ("new local directory"), which is clearly distinct from siblings like export_timeline or project_open_bundle. It does not explicitly name a sibling or its inverse, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 another machine" implies the usage context (moving a project to another host), and "Does not include revision history, caches or exports" rules out using it as a backup/archive tool. However, it never names the counterpart operation (project_open_bundle) or states when a different export tool should be chosen instead.

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