ptfx_install

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'copy ... into stream/ folder' is consistent with a local write. It adds that a Lua snippet is returned, which annotations don't convey. However, it never says whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the stream/ folder is created if absent, or what happens on path errors.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and destination, ending with the return value. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and a mutation annotation set, the description covers the core action and return value but omits write-conflict behavior, preconditions, and the meaning of the effect parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps for a filesystem-mutating tool.

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%: ypt and resource_dir already carry 'absolute path' descriptions, and the prose usefully clarifies that ypt must be a built artifact and resource_dir is a FiveM resource containing stream/. The third parameter, effect, is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not close the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: copies a built .ypt into a FiveM resource's stream/ folder and returns the Lua snippet that plays it. This clearly separates it from siblings like ptfx_pack (build) and ptfx_unpack (extract). It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'built .ypt' hints that packing/preparation must happen first and that the target is a FiveM resource directory. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for related tasks.

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