manage_install_reason

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses behavioral effects: mark_explicit prevents orphan removal, mark_dependency enables auto-removal with orphans, and list returns user-installed packages. It also notes the SUSE Linux constraint. This adds meaningful context about consequences and environment, though it doesn't mention authentication or error handling, which are not critical here.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear overview, lists the three actions, states the platform restriction, and then provides illustrative examples. No sentence is wasted; each part contributes to understanding how to use the tool.

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?

The tool has a small parameter set and no output schema, yet the description covers all essential aspects: actions, required parameters, behavioral outcomes, and platform compatibility. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of each action with concrete examples (e.g., mark_explicit with 'python-pip' keeps the package), and clarifies that package_name is needed for mark actions. This enriches the schema descriptions with behavioral meaning.

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 purpose: 'Unified tool for managing package install reasons.' It lists three specific actions (list, mark_explicit, mark_dependency) with concise definitions, and includes examples that further clarify functionality. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_packages or manage_orphans by focusing on install reason state rather than removal.

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 clear context for when to use each action via examples (e.g., 'action='list' → returns all user-installed packages') and states the platform restriction ('Only works on SUSE Linux'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.