install-from-source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating the 90-second timeout and the remote daemon resolution behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects of installation (e.g., replacing an existing app), prerequisite lease/session requirements, or failure behavior on timeout.

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 a single sentence with no filler, starting with the action verb and resource, then enumerating source types and ending with the timeout. Every word earns its place.

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's complexity (19 parameters, nested source object, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and timeout but leaves device-resolution semantics, return values, and post-install behavior entirely to the schema. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking the tool independently.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete meaning to the generic 'source' object parameter by spelling out that it can be a URL, remote source spec, or CI artifact. This is valuable beyond the schema's generic 'Install source object' description.

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 names a specific verb ('install'), a resource ('app builds'), and the source domain ('URLs, remote source specs, or CI artifacts resolved by a remote daemon'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling 'install' tool without needing to open the schema.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when the build source is a URL, remote spec, or CI artifact resolved by a remote daemon. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name the alternative 'install' tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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