Create Package Version

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds that each version captures the current package source state and that versions are promotable/installable, giving some lifecycle context. However, it does not disclose asynchronous behavior, potential errors, or side effects beyond creating a version.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is brief and does not distract. Overall, it is well-structured and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value and operational behavior. It provides useful lifecycle context but leaves gaps such as what the response contains, how the wait parameter affects polling, and any prerequisites like having an existing package. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reproduces the parameter list with minor elaboration, such as calling installationKey 'optional key to protect the version,' which slightly adds purpose. Overall, the added semantic value is marginal given the schema already describes each parameter.

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 clearly states 'Creates a new version of an existing second-generation package,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like creating a package or installing/uninstalling packages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for creating a version of an existing package and notes that versions can be promoted and installed, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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