st.bridge.install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a confirmation gate, but does not describe side effects, what gets modified, whether installation is reversible, failure behavior, or return value. This is thin for a mutating install operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, with the confirmation requirement placed second. There is no redundant filler, though more behavioral detail would be welcome.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial install operation, the description leaves important context unexplained: how this differs from generic plugin/extension installs, what the bridge installation entails, and what to expect in the response. An agent would need additional inference to use this tool confidently.

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?

The input schema provides only a boolean 'confirm' with no description, so the description must add meaning. 'Requires confirm: true' clarifies that the tool expects an explicit true value, which is useful, but it does not explain why confirmation is needed or what happens if confirm is absent or false.

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 ('Install') and identifies a specific resource: the ST MCP runtime bridge server plugin and frontend extension. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic install tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like st.plugin.install or st.extension.install.

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 only usage guidance is 'Requires confirm: true,' which is a call requirement, not guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are provided, even though sibling install tools exist.

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