setup

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the default no-flag call changes nothing and returns a plan for the user, that apply/upgrade/remove are gated on user agreement, that remove requires apply=true, and that block_web has a side effect (disabling the agent's own web tools). It also defines the confirmed flag's confirmation protocol.

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 most important content (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and every clause carries meaning rather than filler. However, the body is a single dense block of interacting conditions (apply/upgrade/remove/block_web/confirmed) that would be easier to parse if broken up, and it runs longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and five loosely typed parameters with 0% coverage, the description covers the essential decision space: modes, gating, and side effects. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned plan or the environment changes an install/remove actually performs, which leaves minor gaps for a multi-mode mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must define all five parameters, and it effectively does: apply installs missing pieces, upgrade upgrades the package, remove (with apply=true) undoes setup, block_web blocks web tools instead of reminding, and confirmed is set only after an in-chat confirmation. It even explains the remove+apply interaction that the schema cannot express.

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 opens with a specific multi-verb, single-resource statement: 'Set up, check, upgrade or remove HyperRoute for the agent it runs in.' That tells an agent precisely what the tool manipulates (the HyperRoute installation) and its lifecycle modes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with plausibly overlapping siblings like 'onboard' or 'login', which keeps it short of 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?

It gives explicit invocation triggers: 'Call when the user asks to set up, finish, check, upgrade or remove HyperRoute, or when a `note:` says setup is unfinished or an upgrade is out.' It also states gating conditions ('each only after the user agrees') and the confirm flag's precondition, so an agent knows not just when to call but when not to act.

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