package_for_lola

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds concrete details: it 'Replaces any existing ``skills/`` tree under the target module directory' and clarifies that the generate_* output layout is unchanged. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying exactly what is destroyed and the idempotent 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a deprecation note, behavior details, and return format in a compact manner. No wasted words, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, output schema present), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: purpose, destructive action, idempotency, and expected return. It doesn't explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that skills must already be generated), but this is implied by 'already-generated skills' and is not a critical gap. The output schema handles return documentation.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description ties parameters together (e.g., output_dir and module_name in the copying path) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Wrap already-generated skills into a Lola-compatible module directory.' It specifies the copying behavior and output format, and distinguishes from the sibling package_as_plugin by mentioning deprecation and preference.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer :func:`package_as_plugin` (Agent Plugins). Kept for one release cycle for backward compatibility.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, and also states the intended use case (marketplace / lola mod add).

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