revideo_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a mutation that writes dependencies to disk and likely requires network access and time (the 300s default timeout hints at this), but none of the side effects, permissions, or failure behavior are described.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though it leaves little room for the guidance an agent would need.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an install/mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter documentation the description omits critical context (network/auth requirements, duration, idempotency, where dependencies are installed).

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% for both parameters. The description hints that project_dir refers to a materialized project but gives no format or path semantics, and it says nothing about the timeout parameter's meaning beyond the schema default.

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) and resource (the exact locked Revideo dependencies), plus a scope qualifier (for a materialized project) that ties it to the revideo_materialize sibling. It is distinguishable from revideo_render, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among revideo_materialize/revideo_render. The 'for a materialized project' phrase implies it follows materialization, but a reader must infer this rather than being told.

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