zmp_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect beyond the schema — that bundle assets are written into app-config.json — but says nothing about failure behavior, whether the output directory is overwritten, or required environment/auth state.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it lacks any structural cues for when/when-not usage.

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 parameterized build-and-mutate tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the build and the asset-sync side effect but omits prerequisites, failure semantics, and what the tool returns.

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 all three parameters (projectDir, outputDirName, autoSyncAssets) are already well documented. The description only loosely gestures at autoSyncAssets via 'automatically synchronize bundle assets' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build the Zalo Mini App project', plus a secondary action of synchronizing bundle assets with app-config.json. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like zmp_validate_project or zmp_sync_config.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus zmp_validate_project, zmp_sync_config, or zmp_deploy, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a login/token must exist first via zmp_wait_for_login). The agent must infer the workflow position on its own.

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