register_code_package

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects but only says 'Create or update.' It fails to mention whether updates overwrite existing code packages, how dry_run or confirm_write affect behavior, or any permission/ownership requirements. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating the core purpose but omits critical operational details that could be added without excessive length. This is closer to under-specification than model conciseness.

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 13 parameters, a write action, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the create/update distinction, required parameters, or the role of safety flags like dry_run and confirm_write. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input complexity demands more context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 13 parameters. It only adds the fact that the code is JavaScript, but does not explain code_name, code, metadata, input_fields, output_field_definitions, code_status, or any other parameter. The provided example gives a use case but no parameter-level meaning.

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 the action (create or update) and resource (JavaScript code package) with a concrete example ('such as an integration table transform'). It implies a write/upsert behavior, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like list_code_packages and describe_code_packages, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as clone_code_package or revert_code_package. The description does not mention prerequisites, create-vs-update decision factors, or exclusion scenarios, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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