run_npm_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says almost nothing behavioral. It doesn't indicate whether this writes node_modules/package-lock, whether it is long-running or blocking, what happens on failure or if the app doesn't exist, or whether it can be re-run idempotently.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though the same brevity leaves the tool under-specified elsewhere.

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 side-effecting install operation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a successful call produces, how long it takes, or what conditions must hold, all of which matter before invoking it.

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% and the single app_name parameter is fully documented as a 'Registered Node.js application name'. The description adds no interpretation beyond that, so the schema baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource combination (run npm install for a Node.js application), which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not differentiate from related siblings such as run_pip_install or setup_nodejs_app, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the app must already be registered via setup_nodejs_app), and no mention of alternatives like run_pip_install or configure_nodejs_env. The agent gets a purpose statement but must guess the lifecycle context.

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