App Guide Batch Install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a write operation ("写操作"); it says nothing about permissions required, partial-failure behavior for a batch install, prerequisites for the guide flow, or reversibility — significant gaps for a batch mutation.

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 short clause with zero waste and the key fact (batch write) front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than true economy.

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 a 6-parameter batch write with no annotations, the description omits the guide-flow prerequisites and the relationship to the optional connection parameters, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, app_names, volume_id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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+resource — "批量安装商店应用" (batch install store apps) — plus the context of the installation guide flow. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like app_install or app_install_fpk, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why the batch/guide variant is the right pick.

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 phrase "装机引导流程" implies the guide-flow context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as app_install. The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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