install_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that installation works by enabling all servers, that OAuth prompting may occur, and that the return includes auth requirements. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or partial success, but the core behavioral traits are transparently presented.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. 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?

The description adequately covers the input parameters, the action, and the return value. While it does not mention edge cases like partially enabled servers or prerequisites, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to elaborate on return details. For a moderately complex tool, this is sufficient but could mention when it might prompt for OAuth.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema: pack_name with an example ('frontend-stack') and enable_oauth with the condition 'if needed.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by providing meaningful semantic context for each parameter.

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 and resource: 'Install a pack by enabling all its servers.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pack (which creates a definition) or uninstall_pack (which removes), and also specifies the mechanism (enabling servers). The one-line summary is specific and unambiguous.

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 by stating the tool installs a pack, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like enable_server or add_server_to_pack. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. It does provide clear context about what the tool does, but lacks direct guidance on selection.

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