install_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious side effect: the install confirmation is automatically accepted via the Portal, meaning the user will not be prompted. It also flags the WebSocket dependency. It still omits failure modes, permissions, and whether the call blocks until install completes, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded and qualifications appended. No filler.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the action and one important side effect but leaves hide_overlay, install outcome/error behavior, and timing semantics undocumented.

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 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the gist of 'urls' ('one or more APKs from URLs') but gives no format expectations, and it says nothing at all about the hide_overlay parameter or its default behavior.

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 (installs), resource (APKs from URLs), and target (on the device). No sibling tool performs installs, so it is trivially distinguishable from launch_app, list_installed_apps, etc.

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 parenthetical '(WebSocket required)' gives a prerequisite, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement about when it would fail or be inappropriate, and no routing to alternatives (none exist, but the agent is left to infer this).

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