tv_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses the mutating nature of install, the file type requirements, and the conditional uninstall behavior with a specific reason ('Author certificate not match'). Missing details like error handling or device state are minor for this tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant text; every phrase carries meaningful information or a practical instruction.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances. It could mention missing details like prerequisites (e.g., device on) but the schema and description together are sufficient for basic usage.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining when to set uninstallFirst (different certificate case) and reinforcing the absolute path requirement, going beyond the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Install an app package on a TV', and further distinguishes platforms (.wgt for Tizen, .ipk for webOS). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like tv_launch or tv_state.

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 concrete usage instructions: provide an absolute path, and set uninstallFirst:true when a certificate mismatch is expected. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough.

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