Deliver a package to storage

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether the package is copied or moved, whether the operation is async, what permissions are needed, or whether it consumes quota. The integration examples describe the destination, not the behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence's enumeration of integration types is mildly useful context, though it slightly pads the entry without changing how the tool is invoked.

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 mutation with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is minimally viable: it conveys what the tool does but omits the masv_to_cloud prerequisite, what the caller receives back, and what happens to the package after delivery.

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 100% for both parameters, and the schema already documents packageId and integrationId including the direction: masv_to_cloud constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Send MASV package to connected integration') and names the concrete destination types (AWS S3, Frame.io, Dropbox, MASV Storage Gateway). It does not explicitly contrast with the directional sibling transfer_files_from_integration, so an agent must infer the direction from the wording rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites stated, and no exclusion of alternatives. The reader is not told when this is preferred over transfer_files_from_integration or list_files_on_integration, nor that the target integration must have direction masv_to_cloud (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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