reinstall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Replace an installed app with a binary from a local path,' which is nearly identical to what the name implies. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether app data is preserved, or any permission/lease requirements. The phrase 'preserving the same app identity' adds a small nuance but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core action, the second clarifies when to use it.

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 tool with 26 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic selection. It states the prerequisite implicitly ('installed app') and the key differentiator (preserving identity). However, it lacks side effects, required session/lease context, and device selection guidance, leaving clear gaps in safety and operational context.

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 96%, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond mapping 'binary' to appPath, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 ('Replace an installed app') and source ('binary from a local path'), and adds a distinguishing condition: 'preserving the same app identity.' This differentiates it from sibling install tools like 'install' and 'install-from-source.'

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this when preserving the same app identity while installing a new build on the selected device.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the condition is clear enough to guide selection. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives makes it a 4 rather than 5.

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