Create Installation Request

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

The description provides substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), the success response (HTTP 201 with new id), and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). This is valuable context that complements the annotations (idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) without contradicting them.

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 efficient and well-structured, with each sentence contributing useful information: purpose, return/non-idempotency, error handling, required params, API scope, and endpoint. Minor redundancy exists between 'Request to install a new application' and 'Creates the installation request,' but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 covers the key return behavior (new id, HTTP 201) and error payloads. It also notes non-idempotency and required parameters. However, it does not describe the full response structure or potential side effects (e.g., notifications to admins), and the optional 'notes' parameter is only covered by the schema. Still, for a create tool with rich annotations, the description fills most gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters (company_id, developer_app_id, implicit) but this merely restates the schema's required fields and adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself has detailed parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter value.

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 function: 'Request to install a new application. Creates the installation request and returns it with its new id.' The verb 'Creates' and resource 'installation request' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_app_installations or create_app_configuration by focusing on installation requests.

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 implies usage context ('Request to install a new application') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It warns about non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record') but lacks explicit comparison to other installation-related tools, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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