sf_package_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Install a package version' without revealing side effects, required permissions, whether it prompts for confirmation (despite a 'confirm' parameter), or any mutation of the target org. This is a significant omission.

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 sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, making it less useful for a complex tool. It is efficient in word count but lacks essential detail.

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 complexity (11 parameters, a mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, side effects, prerequisites, and parameter meaning, failing to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 11 parameters. It does not explain any parameter such as 'package', 'wait', 'noPrompt', or 'upgradeType', leaving agents to infer from names alone. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb 'Install' and a specific resource 'package version' in a 'target org', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sf_package_create and sf_package_list by indicating an installation rather than creation or listing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclude other deployment tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria from the description alone.

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