stage_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this writes content onto a drone, but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing bundle_id, permissions/auth needed, idempotency, or whether the copy is blocking. For a state-mutating tool this leaves significant gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the reuse rationale. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate on intent but thin on behavior — bundle_id uniqueness, overwrite semantics, and failure modes are unaddressed. The fully covered schema offsets some of this.

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 baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to source ('local script or directory') and hints at drone/bundle reuse, but adds no format, path, or uniqueness semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Copy a local script or directory') plus scope ('to one drone once for reuse by many jobs'), which clearly separates it from siblings like run_jobs or fetch_artifact. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 'once for reuse by many jobs' implies the staging-before-execution workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. when to stage versus passing source inline to run_jobs). Usage must be inferred from the sibling list.

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