Install library package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: copies/extracts files, refuses to replace unless overwrite=true, rejects symlinked directory trees, and returns resolved paths. This goes beyond annotations and provides full transparency.

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 front-loaded paragraph with every sentence adding value: main action, prerequisite, behavioral details, return info. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the return value (resolved paths), error conditions (overwrite false, symlinks), and prerequisites. It is complete for an agent to use this tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. The description adds context about the installation path pattern (dest_dir/<packageName>) and the overwrite behavior, but these are implied or stated in the schema. Additional value is marginal.

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 verb 'Install' and the resource 'local tdmcp component package folder, .zip, .tox, or manifest' into 'dest_dir/<packageName>'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'inspect_component_manifest' for validation and 'browse_library' for discovery after install.

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 explicitly recommends using 'inspect_component_manifest' before installing an unknown package and using 'browse_library' after. It also clarifies when overwrite is needed and that symlinked directories are rejected, providing clear guidance on when to use and not use this tool.

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