android_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantive work: it flags the destructive consequence of allow_uninstall with 'WIPES APP DATA', discloses that device 'defaults to the first physical device', and explains grant_permissions via '-g'. The critical side effects are surfaced, though some behaviors (e.g., behavior with no connected device, failure output) go unmentioned.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence followed by a terse Args block. Every line earns its place: the data-wipe warning, the device default, and the -g flag are all packed in without filler. Slightly list-like formatting, but it is the minimal efficient size for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: all params explained, the destructive side effect called out, and defaults specified. Minor gaps (return value shape, prerequisite of a running device/emulator) keep it from a 5.

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%, yet the description documents all 7 parameters with operational meaning: the project_dir vs apk alternation, the 'Gradle root' relationship, the variant/module scoping, device defaulting, and the conflict-resolution semantics of allow_uninstall. This fully compensates for the empty 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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Install an already-built APK', and immediately disambiguates from the Gradle build lifecycle with '(no Gradle involved)'. In a sibling set containing android_build and android_prepare, this clearly positions the tool as the install step.

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 phrase 'already-built APK (no Gradle involved)' gives clear contextual usage: this is the post-build install step, and the agent should not expect compilation here. It states an exclusion but never names the alternative explicitly (e.g., 'use android_build to compile first'), so selection is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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