ecp_php_install

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

There is no annotation coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the operation is time-consuming and it cannot show install output, and it provides a corrective verification step. This exceeds most descriptions, though it could mention facility-required privileges or failure modes.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the caveat about output and verification is stated immediately. Every sentence earns its place and the information is easy to parse.

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, no-output-schema install operation, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, time expectation, output limitation, and verification alternative. It doesn't state what the function itself returns, but the guidance to check the sibling covers the success determination proxy, making this enough for an agent to proceed.

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 schema has no description coverage (0%) and the description barely supplements it. It alludes to the 'version' parameter by phrasing 'Install a PHP version' but does not define expected version formats or explain the 'confirm' parameter's exact meaning beyond the schema's const constraint. Given the low coverage, this is an under-documented area.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Install a PHP version') and identifies the method ('apt-get'), making the action clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling install tools like ecp_asdf_install, but among the PHP siblings (installed versions, uninstall, ini) there is little ambiguity.

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 gives useful operational guidance: it warns that no install output appears and instructs checking ecp_php_installed_versions to confirm success. However, it doesn't state when to use this over alternative installation approaches or provide exclusions, leaving some usage judgment to the agent.

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