Install App

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

No annotations beyond readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing idempotency and manifest version pinning, which are non-obvious behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether prior installs get replaced or what changes occur to existing state when dryRun is false. The idempotentHint is false in annotations while description claims idempotency — not a strict contradiction but a nuance worth noting.

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 purpose, then scoping constraints and alternatives. Zero waste — every clause earns its place. Appends the important negative caveats immediately.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics well: idempotency, manifest pinning, visibility caveat, credential alternative. The main gap is the unexplained dryRun parameter and lack of any error/permission context, but for a relatively simple install operation the coverage is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so no parameter-level help in the schema. However, the description explains 'installs pins manifest version' which gives context to appKey (identifies a catalog app). The dryRun parameter is not explained at all — no mention of what a dry run returns or doesn't do. With 0% coverage, the description should do more to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

Clear verb+resource (install an app into workspace), states idempotency and manifest pinning behavior. Explicitly differentiates from kilango_activate_app_in_portal (visibility) and kilango_connect_app (credentials), distinguishing it from relevant 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?

Explicitly states what installation does NOT do (doesn't make visible, doesn't handle credentials) and directs to the correct alternative tools (kilango_activate_app_in_portal, kilango_connect_app). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names specific alternatives.

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