App Install Fpk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only discloses one trait: that this is a write operation (写操作). It says nothing about required permissions/scope, that accept_license defaults to true (automatic license acceptance), cancellation behavior (cancel_on_failure, app_install_cancel), or side effects on an existing app version. For a 14-parameter mutation tool the disclosure is thin.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and immediately follows with the two most decision-relevant facts (write operation, source either/or). No filler, nothing restated from the title.

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 14-parameter write tool with zero annotations, the description is far too sparse; the output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks permissions, license-behavior, and failure/cancel context. It covers the minimum to identify the tool and not much more.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the mutual-exclusivity of remote_path and local_file, which the schema arguably also implies; it adds nothing about host/port/scheme, volume_id vs data_volume_id, or the unlabeled dry_run/no_start toggles.

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 (安装/install) and resource (应用/app) and qualifies the source as an 'fpk 离线安装包', which meaningfully distinguishes it from the online/store install siblings like app_install and app_store_detail. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent still infers the boundary rather than being told it.

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 parenthetical '写操作；remote_path 或 local_file 二选一' gives an operational constraint (choose one of two source paths) and flags the write nature, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over app_install, app_guide_batch_install, or the store install path, nor any prerequisite/exclusion guidance.

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