Install library package

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no context about what destructive actions occur (e.g., overwriting existing packages) or what side effects may arise. It merely states the installation action without elaborating on behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single 18-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, given the tool's destructive nature and three parameters, it could be slightly expanded to include key details like overwrite behavior without losing conciseness.

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?

The description lacks critical context: it does not explain dest_dir format, overwrite behavior, return values, or any prerequisites/limitations. For a destructive tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 33% (source parameter has a description). The tool description repeats the schema's description for source but adds no meaning for dest_dir or overwrite. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to clarify these parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Install a local package folder, zip, tox, or manifest into a local tdmcp package directory.' It specifies the verb (Install) and resource (package), and lists the accepted source types, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_packages or validate_library_asset.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to choose installation over other package management operations, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for proper selection.

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