Install guard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It richly covers the safety implications: idempotency, no clobbering of existing settings, required jq dependency, session restart need, and the specific commands guarded. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 a single dense paragraph, but each sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanics, safety guarantees, prerequisites, activation, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and the structure is logical, moving from what it does to when to use it.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers installation targets, idempotency, command blocking rules, prerequisite (jq), activation requirement, and the relationship to a sibling tool. This leaves no obvious gaps in understanding what the tool does and how to use it safely.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including the default for target and the requirement for project_path when target='project'. The tool description mostly paraphrases this information, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Install the destructive-command guard.' It specifies scope (global vs. project) and differentiates itself from the sibling tool bootstrap_project, which is the primary alternative. This is specific and immediately clear.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool directly ('target="project" or to re-check after a manual jq install') and when not to ('bootstrap_project already checks for the global guard and installs it if missing'). It also names the alternative tool, making the decision tree obvious.

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