package_install

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description does not add beyond that: it never mentions that installs are long-running (hence the wait/publishWait minutes), that org auth or an installation key may be required, or what happens to existing components on upgrade. Some added value (04t vs alias support) but no real behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundancy. The trailing phrase 'with various configuration options' is vague filler that earns little, keeping it short of a 5.

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 destructive, potentially slow, multi-option installation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action but omits invocation-relevant context: the required nesting under 'input', the default-org fallback behavior, and any indication of what is returned or how failures surface. The rich nested schema compensates for parameter gaps, but behavioral context remains thin.

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 nested schema documents all nine options in detail (apexCompile, upgradeType, securityType, installationKey, waits), so the parameter burden is largely carried by the schema rather than the description. However, the top-level 'input' wrapper is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description's claim of 'various configuration options' is vague rather than naming the meaningful knobs.

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/upgrade), the resource (package version), and the target system (Salesforce org), which cleanly separates it from the sibling package_uninstall. It notes accepted identifier forms (04t IDs or aliases), but never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., package_uninstall or deploy_start), no prerequisites such as being logged into a target org, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about selection context from the tool name.

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