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

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming exactly what is overwritten (loader, version and mods), the timing (applied at the next restart, not immediately), and the mitigating behavior (a backup is taken first). It also notes 'Returns the server,' giving an expected response shape despite there being no output schema. This is the rich destruction/timing context annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Roughly three short clauses: what it does and its blast radius front-loaded, then the required inputs, then the return. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, timing, safety net and return value, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of stating the failure/abort path and never mentions the required serverId, leaving a small but real gap.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, so the description does useful work by naming uploadId, key and each ETag as the values to supply. However, it says nothing about the required path.serverId parameter, the partNumber ordering requirement, or the ETag quoting format that the nested schema documents — so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — installs the uploaded .mrpack as the server's modpack — and specifies the scope of that install (loader, version and mods). This clearly separates it from the sibling upload tools (startModpackUpload, inspectModpackUpload, abortModpackUpload) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 this is the terminal step of a multipart upload ('Pass uploadId, key and each ETag') and discloses that it triggers at the next restart, but it never explicitly says when to call it versus inspectModpackUpload or abortModpackUpload, nor what precondition must hold (all parts uploaded). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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