kura_install_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Install' without revealing side effects, such as whether it overwrites existing packages, requires network access, triggers a restart, or has any destructive potential. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the score from 5, as it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 an install action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain success/failure behavior, whether the operation is idempotent, or what a deployment package means in this context. The description provides only the minimum viable indication of purpose.

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 100%, with each parameter (instance, name, version, url) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but given the high schema coverage, it does not need to. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Install a deployment package' uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('deployment package'), clearly stating the tool's primary function. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which are mostly get/update/config operations, making the purpose clear despite its brevity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like kura_get_packages or kura_update_configuration exist, but the description does not mention them or any prerequisites or scenarios. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone.

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