install

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates on what destructive entails: creates files/dirs, overwrites with --allow_overwrite, default mode 755. Also mentions return JSON with paths and status, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with core functionality, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, return format, and alternatives. No missing context for a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: default mode 755, path interpretation as SOURCE DESTINATION, and the role of --allow_overwrite. While helpful, it doesn't drastically extend meaning; thus 4.

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?

Clearly states the tool copies files and sets attributes (permissions, ownership), distinguishing itself from siblings like 'cp' and 'ginstall'.

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 recommends usage for software deployment and Makefile install targets, and warns against misuse for simple copying (use 'cp') or GNU-install compatibility (use 'ginstall'). Also suggests --dry_run for safe preview.

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