Suggest packaging metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description reinforces that it does NOT save, which aligns with annotations. However, it adds no further behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, so the addition is modest.

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 three sentences, efficiently conveying purpose, scope, and next steps. It front-loads the main action and adds critical context. Slight improvement could be made by clarifying the parameter, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers purpose, usage flow, and safety. However, the lack of parameter explanation leaves a gap. An incomplete parameter description limits completeness for a tool that relies on the only input.

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 has only one parameter 'project' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'from the project's config, brand, and products' but does not clarify what 'project' means (e.g., name, ID, or path). The agent may be uncertain how to specify the project, making this a significant gap despite the tool's simplicity.

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's purpose: to derive a draft of .mcpb packaging metadata from project config, brand, and products. It explicitly says it does NOT save and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool save_packaging_config. The verb 'suggest' and resource 'packaging metadata' are specific and unique among siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool to generate a draft, then refine it, and finally persist with save_packaging_config. It clearly indicates when to use this tool and when to use the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the workflow.

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