trmnl_install_app

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: the endpoint, the per-account scope, and the duplicate-install response (200 with the existing installation). Minor tension with idempotentHint=false, since duplicate installs appear to be absorbed rather than repeated, but the first call still mutates state, so this is a nuance rather than a contradiction. It omits permission/rate-limit details.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the duplicate behavior, then the endpoint. The final sentence ('Changes remote state or starts work') largely restates what the annotations already declare, but the block stays short and scannable.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, endpoint, and duplicate handling, which is close to what an agent needs. It does not say what the response body contains (presumably an installation record) or what failure modes to expect, a small remaining gap.

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 coverage is 50% and both documented properties (body.app_key sourced from listApps, profile defaulting to 'default') already carry their meaning in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Installs the app for this account') plus the underlying endpoint, which is enough to separate it from trmnl_uninstall_app, trmnl_list_app_installations, and the installation-configuration siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'Run only within the user-authorized scope' line gives a safety condition, and the duplicate-install behavior tells the agent a retry is safe-ish, but there is no explicit routing guidance (e.g. call trmnl_list_apps first to obtain app_key, or use trmnl_prepare_installation for configuration setup). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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