pr_install_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that status is read-only by default, that install copies files into the user's CEP extensions folder and enables unsigned extensions via PlayerDebugMode, and that user consent is required before install. It also states the required restart and follow-up verification step.

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 definition is a single dense but well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then explains actions, then gives the operational sequence. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action semantics, the user-consent requirement, the filesystem side effect, the required Premiere restart, and the follow-up call to pr_verify. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 explain the sole parameter, and it does: action=status is the default read-only check, while action=install performs the copy and PlayerDebugMode change. Both enum values are given concrete meaning beyond the bare enum names.

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 names the specific resource (the Premiere-side CEP extension MCPBridgeCEP) and the specific operations (status and install). It clearly distinguishes this tool from pr_verify by explaining that this is the installer/status checker while pr_verify confirms the connector answers.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when pr_verify reports that the connector does not answer.' It also gives a clear before/after workflow ('ask the user first', then quit and reopen Premiere, then call pr_verify), leaving little ambiguity about ordering or alternatives.

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