App Install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a write operation and that dry_run=True produces a preview only — meaningful traits beyond the schema. But it omits permission/auth requirements, side effects of a real install, and interaction with async task tools (app_task_status), leaving substantial gaps 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the write nature leads, then the dry_run caveat. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a 12-parameter operation.

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 12-parameter install mutation with no annotations, the description is thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description lacks guidance on required args, host/profile selection, and how the install relates to sibling task/status tools — gaps that matter more given the tool's complexity.

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 high (75%), so the schema documents most parameters, warranting a baseline of 3. The description does add value by explaining dry_run, which has no schema description, but the many other undocumented-or-shallow params (no_start, accept_license defaults, volume targeting) get no additional meaning from the prose.

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 (安装应用 = install an app), which is clear on its own. However it does not differentiate from closely-related siblings such as app_install_fpk (install from an fpk file) or app_guide_batch_install, so an agent cannot route confidently among the install-family tools from the text alone.

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 conditional guidance is about dry_run behavior, which is parameter semantics rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over app_install_fpk, app_guide_batch_install, or app_store_detail/app_update, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (auth, required host/profile).

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