Build OPA bundle

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is a .tar.gz archive and that signing is optional, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as overwriting existing outputs or the fact that signing implies bundle mode (though the schema covers the latter). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: purpose first, then output format, then supported features. The description is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information. The mention of `opa build` clarifies the underlying command without redundancy.

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's complexity (16 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description is a useful but high-level summary. It does not guide the agent on when to choose this tool over opa_bundle_sign/verify, nor does it highlight important constraints like entrypoints being required for wasm/optimize; the schema covers those details, but the description alone is not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of key capabilities (optimization, revision strings, WASM target) that maps to parameters, but it does not provide meaningful new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('deployable bundle from policy / data paths') and adds concrete output details (.tar.gz, optional signing, WASM target). This distinguishes it from related siblings like opa_bundle_sign and opa_bundle_verify, which handle signing/verification rather than building.

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 usage for building deployable bundles from policy/data paths, but it does not explicitly contrast this with related tools such as opa_bundle_sign, opa_bundle_verify, or rego_eval. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary from the description and sibling names.

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