codex_install

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an install/update mutation. The description usefully adds the non-destructive scope boundary (top-level selectors untouched), which is real behavioral value beyond the annotation. It says nothing about auth needs, idempotency, or failure modes, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence: action first, then the constraint that disambiguates it. Every clause earns its place with 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it does and what it deliberately does not touch. Minor gap: no mention of what 'namespaced' install means operationally or any resulting state, but nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level semantics are needed or missing.

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 pair (install/update) and a precise resource (namespaced Delegation Worker provider), plus a scope boundary that separates it from provider_save/provider_delete siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource itself is distinctive enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 clause 'without changing official top-level model/provider selectors' implies the scenario in which this tool is preferred over the general provider tools, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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