Attach docs as assets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that the tool 'writes into the package folder (destructive)' and registers docs in the manifest, specifying exactly what gets modified. This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 two sentences, action-first, with usage context and a destructive warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

While purpose and usage are clear, the description leaves significant gaps around parameter semantics, especially for the help_snapshot object and the expected format of docs paths. With no output schema and only 25% schema coverage, an agent lacks sufficient detail to confidently invoke the tool with all parameters.

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 only 25%, and the description does not explain the meaning of docs, asset_dir, or manifest_path beyond the vague 'documentation files.' It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage with parameter-level guidance.

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 'Copy documentation files into a package and register them in its manifest's docs list,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly referencing make_portable_tox and the package manifest context.

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 description explicitly says 'Use after make_portable_tox' and explains the intended outcome (so docs travel with the component), giving clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like bundle_dependencies or collect_project_assets.

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