Install bridge add-on

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main job is the flow and side effects. It does that: it writes into Anki's add-ons folder, requires a two-step preview-plus-token sequence, and requires a user-driven Anki restart afterward. The 'two-step: preview + token' phrasing is compressed enough that the mechanics of the handshake remain partially implicit.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the payoff capabilities, then the procedure and the restart requirement. Nothing is redundant. The 'Two-step: preview + token' fragment is the one spot where compression costs clarity.

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 needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the mutation/idempotency profile. The description covers purpose, prerequisites (restart), and the confirm-token flow. The remaining gap is the confirm-token acquisition details and what 'or update' does to an existing install, which is a meaningful omission for a file-writing tool but not a blocking one.

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 single parameter confirm_token has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. 'Two-step: preview + token' hints that a token comes from a prior call, but it never says how the token is obtained, whether the first call is made with confirm_token null, or how long the token is valid. It compensates partially for the coverage gap rather than fully.

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+resource ('Install (or update) the optional Anki MCP Bridge add-on into Anki's add-ons folder') and then names the downstream capabilities it unlocks (profile renaming, exact deck renames, AwesomeTTS audio). That capability list is what distinguishes it from siblings like anki_rename_profile and anki_generate_audio, which the agent would otherwise reach for directly.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this: when profile renaming, exact deck renames, or AwesomeTTS audio are needed but unavailable. It also flags that the tool is 'optional' and that the user must restart Anki. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'do not use if anki_status reports the bridge already installed'), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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