icp_install_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the local filesystem source, but does not disclose whether reinstall/upgrade modes are destructive, what happens to existing code, or any authorization requirements. Given the 'mode' parameter includes reinstall/upgrade, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences that convey the core purpose and key differentiator without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or behavioral differences between install/reinstall/upgrade modes. With overlapping siblings like icp_upgrade_canister and icp_deploy, this lack of context is insufficient for a potentially destructive operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds that it reads WASM locally, but wasm_path already indicates a path to the .wasm file, so the added value is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('installs or upgrades') and the resource ('WASM code in a canister'), and adds a key differentiator by noting it reads from the local filesystem. This distinguishes it from siblings like icp_install_asset_wasm or icp_deploy.

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 implies usage context ('reads from local filesystem') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over icp_upgrade_canister or icp_deploy, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The local-filesystem hint provides some guidance, but it is not explicit.

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