reinstall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the timeout ('Times out after 180s') and the replacement semantics, but it does not mention potential data loss, whether app data is preserved, required preconditions, or failure behavior. It adds some useful behavioral context but remains incomplete.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and a practical timeout detail. Every sentence 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, usage, and timeout. However, it does not mention what happens on success or failure, whether existing user data is preserved, or any response shape. The high schema coverage compensates for parameters, but behavioral context remains only partially complete.

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 high (94%), so most parameters are already explained by the schema. The description itself does not add meaning to specific parameters like app or appPath beyond what is already documented. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Replace an installed app with a binary from a local path') and a specific resource (an installed app + local binary). It distinguishes reinstall from sibling tools like install or install-from-source by emphasizing 'preserving the same app identity.'

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 explicitly provides a condition for use: 'Use this when preserving the same app identity while installing a new build on the selected device.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this over a fresh install.

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