install_modpack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that a managed pack gets registered for later update checks, that the fallback imports at file level, and that packs with optional client mods are refused by the bridge in headless mode. It omits permissions/auth needs, whether existing instances are overwritten, and time/size expectations, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence before the branching detail. Dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info; it handles the branching logic well but leaves parameter meanings and any indication of return value or failure modes uncovered. Adequate for an install operation, but not complete for a zero-coverage schema.

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. It clarifies that the required `project` parameter accepts either a project id or a slug, which is genuinely useful, but `name` and `versionId` receive no mention at all, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Install a Modrinth modpack') with an ecosystem qualifier that distinguishes it from the *_cf siblings such as import_modpack_cf. However, it never says how it differs from the plain import_modpack sibling, so the agent cannot fully disambiguate the pair from the text alone.

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 explains the runtime conditions (bridge-enabled Prism vs no bridge) that select the internal code path, which is useful, but that is behavioral rather than selection guidance for the agent. It offers no rule for choosing install_modpack over import_modpack or the CurseForge variants, so usage is only implied.

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