brain_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is idempotent and non-destructive, never overrides existing lessons, and can be re-run for updates. It also mentions offline functionality. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 5 sentences, with the main action front-loaded. It is reasonably concise, but the first sentence is somewhat long. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, safe usage, and an example. It lacks details on the return format (beyond the example string) and potential side effects, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema describes all 5 parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it provides an example (slug only) and implies default behaviors (e.g., limit default 200) but does not explicitly detail defaults or the meaning of instance_id, dry_run, min_confirms. The example omits the required instance_id, which is a minor inconsistency.

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 installs a Domain Brain, pulling curated lessons for immediate use. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brain_marketplace (browse) and brain_search (search) by specifying the action and the result.

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 tells users to browse available brains first with brain_marketplace() and gives an example of usage. It also mentions it can be re-run for updates, implying idempotent usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other install-like tools (e.g., brain_import) or state when not to use it.

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