Bundle dependencies (self-contained package)

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing exactly what is mutated (parameters in the live network), what is created (assets folder, .tox, manifest), and how missing files are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries essential, non-redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers output structure, sibling distinctions, and a critical mutation warning—all without 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?

Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with destructive side effects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full process, the delivered artifact, how it differs from alternatives, and the key caveat about live network mutation. An output schema exists, so return values are already covered.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining the relationship between the workflow and parameters, especially rewrite_refs (mutation behavior) and out_dir/assets structure. It doesn't add per-parameter detail beyond schema but augments understanding of the overall flow.

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 begins with 'Make a COMP self-contained' and details the exact workflow: scan, copy, rewrite, save with manifest. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from make_portable_tox (which leaves assets behind) and collect_project_assets (which only reports), so the agent knows exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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 contrasts this tool with sibling tools make_portable_tox and collect_project_assets, telling the agent when this is the right choice. It also provides a critical usage caveat: rewriting mutates the live network, and setting rewrite_refs=false enables a copy-and-report mode without mutations.

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