install_ev_extension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a force-install (a mutating action) and explicitly describes the behavior of declining uninstall/removal requests, redirecting to manual steps. It does not mention side effects or permission requirements, but the core behavioral constraint is transparent.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary action. The second sentence adds rationale (EV required for CAA), and the third provides a crucial behavioral instruction. It is somewhat longer than strictly needed but every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 a simple tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, rationale, and a key behavioral rule. It lacks explicit error scenarios or return-value details, but these are partially covered by the output schema and are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema describes both parameters with meaningful descriptions (orgUnitId, customerId), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Force-installs the Endpoint Verification (EV) extension for a given Organizational Unit.' This uses a specific verb ('force-installs') and resource ('EV extension'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like install_seb_extension by naming the exact extension.

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 context for when the tool is relevant (EV extension is REQUIRED for CAA) and gives a clear when-not instruction: decling to uninstall programmatically and directing manual removal in the Admin Console. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like check_ev_extension_status, but the context is sufficient for appropriate use.

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