Install local failover

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the backup-and-integrate workflow and the mandatory confirmation token, which are behavioral traits not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and separated from the requirement. No wasted words, each clause carries meaning.

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 description gives a solid overview of the workflow, prerequisites, and confirmation requirement. Output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety. The main gap is missing explanations for two optional parameters, but they are optional and reasonably self-descriptive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only provides meaning for 'confirmation', specifying the required value. 'config_path' and 'start_when_ready' have no added semantics beyond their names and defaults, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 clear, specific action: back up and integrate persistent AI group/rules, then install the LaunchAgent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like preview_install and simulate_failover by focusing on the actual installation step.

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 signals this is the mutating, actual installation step by requiring mutation opt-in and a specific confirmation string. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from preview/simulation tools.

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