Create a package from files in storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that it both creates a package and initiates the transfer, but says nothing about whether the transfer is synchronous, how failures are surfaced, or any permission/rate constraints.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and the supported sources before the prerequisite. Placing the list_files_on_integration prerequisite at the end is slightly less ideal than front-loading it, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and prerequisite but omits what the call returns (e.g. package ID/handle) and gives no context on optional parameters like recipients, accessLimit, or notifyEmail, which the schema documents but the description leaves untouched.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the file ID semantics and kind enum. The description only indirectly reinforces where the file IDs come from via list_files_on_integration; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource with direction of flow stated ('Transfer files from a cloud integration... to MASV') and an enumeration of supported sources (AWS S3, Azure, Dropbox, MASV Storage Gateway). It also notes the side effect (creates a new package). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the reverse-direction sibling send_package_to_integration, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: 'Use list_files_on_integration first to get file information including IDs,' which tells the agent this tool cannot be called cold. No exclusions or alternative routing (e.g. when to use send_package_to_integration instead) are provided.

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