App repo install

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses two failure modes (MissingParameterError for app_sys_id/scope, ParameterError for a non-boolean auto_upgrade_base_app), but says nothing about side effects on the instance, reversibility, or what 'installing' actually affects.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the docstring conventions keep it scannable. The :param:/:type: duplication of the same name and type is mildly redundant, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 43-parameter, non-idempotent write operation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this is thin: 5 parameters explained, a vague ':return: parsed Pydantic model', and two error cases. It omits preconditions, instance impact, and any hint about the 38 remaining fields.

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% across 43 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and documents only 5 of them (app_sys_id, scope, auto_upgrade_base_app, base_app_version, version). The remaining 38 parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, a severe gap for a tool with this many inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: installing an application from the repository. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling reads like servicenow_get_application, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings such as servicenow_app_repo_publish, servicenow_app_repo_rollback, or servicenow_batch_install, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance; the phrase 'based on the provided parameters' is circular. The :raises: block implies app_sys_id and scope are mandatory, which is prerequisite-adjacent, but no usage context is actually given.

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