runrunit_install_cursor_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the write behavior (copies flat files preserving basename), the local-only scope, and the dry_run safety valve. However, it does not mention idempotency, overwrite behavior, or whether missing source/mcp package causes errors. Acceptable for the category 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing, then parameters. The Spanish phrase 'compartilhar/dividir com o time' adds minor noise but is understandable and does not hurt. Nearly all content earns its place.

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 tool with 6 params, all covered in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavior scope and safety valve. It does not mention whether the command returns a list of copied paths, but the lack of an output schema is offset by a clear behavioral summary. Slight gap around project-vs-global interplay, but target's schema description already explains that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful shorthand (flat files, preserves basename including .agent.md) that clarifies target and agent_names behavior, but it does not deeply elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Local install only: copies agent markdown from mcp-runrunit (cursor-agents/) into ~/.cursor/agents', a specific verb and resource plus the destination scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from runrunit_share_cursor_agent for GitHub PR sharing, which separates it from the closest siblings.

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?

It states when to use it ('Local install only'), recommends dry_run:true first, and explicitly says NOT for team sharing via GitHub and names the alternative (runrunit_share_cursor_agent). This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named sibling.

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