package_project

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but description doesn't elaborate on what 'creation' entails (e.g., whether it overwrites existing output, reads the entire project directory, or validates the project structure). Provides little beyond what annotations already imply.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not structured to highlight key aspects like parameters or behavior.

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 has 4 parameters, a destructive hint, no output schema, and is part of a suite of project tools, the description is far too minimal. It should explain the packaging process, output location, and any constraints (e.g., required file structure).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not mention output_dir, package_name, or exclude_globs at all, leaving the AI to guess their roles.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a zip package for a specific game mod project, with a strong verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('zip package'). It distinguishes from siblings like build_project which likely compiles code rather than packaging.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., build_project). Doesn't mention prerequisites like having a project already scaffolded, or that packaging is typically the final step.

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