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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by scoping the destruction precisely: an existing home file aborts the install, three named script files in the plugin folder are overwritten, and nothing else in the folder is touched. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before approving a write to a user's storage folder.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the prose is bloated and occasionally opaque — 'before the press', 'the three script hands', and 'each platform's is born there when it first saves' require re-reading. Several sentences do earn their place (the overwrite and abort rules), yet they are wrapped in unnecessary phrasing.

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, two-parameter install with no output schema, it covers what is created, the abort condition, and the overwrite boundary. Gaps remain: it never says what the tool returns on success or failure, and it assumes rather than states that a storage connection already exists.

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 coverage is only 50% (project_name has no description at all), and the description compensates by explaining that HOME.md is 'copied from the standard text with the project's name filled in', which defines what project_name actually does. It also clarifies home_path semantics ('installs into the folder it is given, beside whatever is already there'), though it adds nothing on path syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a Living Projects home (a folder containing a record folder, plugin folder, and HOME.md) into a given folder in connected storage. The word 'Install' plus the enumeration of what the home contains clearly separates it from read_home, list_homes, update_home_file, and connect_storage.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'nothing needs checking or confirming before the press' and 'An existing home file stops the install' tell the agent it can be called directly and will fail if a home already exists, hinting at list_homes/read_home as the check. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings, nor that connect_storage must have succeeded first, so the prerequisites are left to inference.

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