typora_install_bridge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that a backup of window.html is taken first and that a Typora restart is required for the change to take effect. It does not explain what exactly is overwritten or how to recover beyond the backup.

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 written sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the follow-up requirement second. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 an idempotent-but-destructive install operation with no output schema, the description covers the safety net (backup) and the restart requirement, which is decent. It omits parameter purpose and any guidance on when installation is needed versus checking typora_bridge_status first.

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 67%, below the high-coverage threshold, so the description should compensate, and it does not mention token, registryDir, or executablePath at all. 'executablePath' has no schema description either, leaving it fully undocumented.

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 ('install') and resource ('standalone local renderer bridge') plus an additional concrete action (back up window.html). The pairing with the sibling typora_uninstall_bridge is inferable but never named, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a post-install directive ('Restart Typora afterward to load it'), which is useful operational guidance, but gives no when-to-use rationale, no prerequisites, and no explicit comparison to typora_uninstall_bridge or typora_bridge_status. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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