marketplace_install_sidebar_frame

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond restating mutation. Critically it never explains that the required 'mode' includes a 'plan' dry-run versus 'apply' commit, nor the meaning of the 'confirmation' parameter or ownership checks.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the action front-loaded ahead of the type-scope clarification. Efficient for what it does, though brevity here comes partly from under-specification.

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 7-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent is left without enough to correctly invoke plan vs apply mode, supply confirmation, or understand the url/applications/location bindings.

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 only 14% (just partner_id), so the description must compensate heavily. It maps the three values of the 'type' enum (chat/waiting_list/task_tracker) but leaves the plan/apply semantics of 'mode', the purpose of 'confirmation', and the roles of url/application_id/location_id entirely undocumented.

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/remove) and resource (sidebar frame), and enumerates the three handled types. It also disambiguates from developer employee/client/visit frames, which helps separate it from the entity-frame siblings, though it does not name those tools directly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternative sibling (e.g. marketplace_replace_entity_frames, marketplace_list_entity_frames, marketplace_toggle_sidebar_highlight) is named for routing. The type distinction is a scope statement rather than usage direction.

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