install_mod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: required dependencies are installed recursively while optional ones are only reported, and version selection is automatic. It omits whether an existing install is overwritten, whether it needs network/auth, and how 'reported' surfaces to the caller, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two dense sentences, no padding, with the core action and its automatic behaviors front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but leaves the 'type' and 'versionId' parameters unexplained and doesn't say what the call returns or how dependency reports are delivered. Adequate for a first call, but not complete for confident use.

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 compensate and largely doesn't. It clarifies that 'project' takes an id or slug, but says nothing about the 'type' enum (mod/resourcepack/shader/datapack), what 'instance' identifies, or whether 'versionId' overrides the automatic version matching described in the text — a notable ambiguity given the sentence about choosing a matching version.

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?

States a specific verb (install), a specific resource (Modrinth project), and the target container (an instance), plus the automatic version-matching rule. Naming 'Modrinth' implicitly separates it from install_mod_cf, and the '(id or slug)' note tells the agent what identifier form to expect.

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 context is implied: use this for Modrinth-sourced content, and the description explains version auto-selection, which shapes when an agent would call it versus passing an explicit version. However, it never names install_mod_cf, import_modpack, or update_mod as alternatives, nor says when not to use it (e.g., already-installed mods).

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