Install library package

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses specific behaviors: it copies/extracts files, refuses replacement unless overwrite=true, rejects symlinked directory trees, and returns scope plus resolved paths. These details add significant behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core install action and accepted formats. Every clause adds distinct information—scope options, legacy form, prerequisite, edge-case behaviors, and return value—with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description explicitly mentions what the tool returns ('scope plus resolved paths'). It also covers prerequisites, parameter interrelationships, and safety-edge cases (symlinks, overwrite), making it complete for a tool with 6 parameters and a destructive hint.

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 schema already covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds crucial relationships: project scope uses <project_dir>/.tdmcp/packages and requires project_dir, while dest_dir preserves the legacy form. It also implicitly clarifies the role of overwrite by stating refusal behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install'), names the resource type ('tdmcp component package folder, .zip, .tox, or manifest'), and clearly distinguishes between explicit project/user scope and the legacy dest_dir form. This differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_component_manifest or make_portable_tox.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Use inspect_component_manifest first for unknown packages') and explains when project_dir is required for project scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to consider instead, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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