rebuild

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating that the password is supplied as an environment-variable name rather than a literal, that nothing is auto-installed, and that signing is followed by re-verification. It stops short of saying what a rebuild overwrites in the existing project directory.

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 compact clause separated by semicolons, front-loading the two operations before the constraints. It is dense and telegraphic but every clause carries information; 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 destructive 5-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers the riskiest semantics (password handling, no auto-install, post-sign verification) but leaves path/alias meaning and post-rebuild effects unexplained. Adequate, with clear residual gaps an agent would hit when invoking it.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load; it explains keystore and clarifies that passwordEnv is an env-var name (a non-obvious constraint absent from the schema) and maps action to build/sign. Path and alias receive no explanation, and the interplay between action and keystore is only inferred.

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 names two concrete operations – rebuild an apktool project and sign with an explicit keystore followed by re-verification – so the agent can tell what the tool does beyond the bare name 'rebuild'. It does not name any sibling tool (decode, resources, artifact) to explicitly differentiate, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Usage is only implied through the two action modes: rebuild versus sign, with signing requiring an explicit keystore and no automatic installation. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over decode/resources or what preconditions (existing project directory) must hold.

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