Save packaging config

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies validation against build preflight rules, rejection of hard errors (missing name/description), and that only provided fields change. Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructive nature, so this is complementary.

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 two concise sentences: one stating purpose and fields, another on validation and partial updates. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (validation, partial update) but does not specify the return value or confirm whether it creates or updates. Still, it is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 compensates by listing all meaningful parameters (name, displayName, description, etc.) and their slugified nature. However, it omits the required 'project' parameter's meaning, relying on implicit context.

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 tool persists packaging metadata for a project, listing the fields it handles (name, displayName, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_packaging' which only validates without persisting.

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 use for updating packaging config, noting validation rules and partial updates. While it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the context is clear enough for most agents.

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