Prepare an install plan (does not install)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the contents of the preview (diff, permissions, env vars) and that the actual mutation happens out-of-band via a user-confirmed CLI command.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it produces, what it does not do, and the required next step. The non-effect is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the plan contains (diff, permissions, env vars) and how the install ultimately happens. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which is the only reason this is not a 5.

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 20% - only `path` is documented, while `id`, `host`, `scope`, and `access` have no descriptions despite three being enums. The description adds no meaning for any parameter (e.g., what 'access: write' changes in the preview), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Show exactly what installing a tool would change') and immediately lists the artifacts returned (diff, permissions, env vars). The negation 'It does NOT apply anything' plus the title make it unmistakably distinct from any actual install operation among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use it (it does not install) and routes the agent to the correct alternative action: have the user run `stackhint install` in a terminal with confirmation. It stops short of contrasting with sibling read-only tools like explain_tool or recommend_tools, but the key decision boundary is covered.

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