arvan_helm_install

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

Annotations are neutral (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds minimal behavioral context by explaining that `values` are passed as `--set key=value` pairs and that `chart` can be a local path or repo chart. It does not discuss side effects, failure modes, or upgrade behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, followed by brief parameter details. Every sentence provides value without 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers only the core action and two key parameters. Common parameters like namespace and kubeconfig are self-explanatory, but the description lacks completeness in explaining all inputs and potential outcomes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for two parameters (`values` and `chart`) by explaining how they are used. However, the other six parameters (release, namespace, kubeconfig, etc.) are not explained, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 it installs or upgrades a Helm chart, specifying the verb (install/upgrade), resource (Helm chart), and provides details on `values` and `chart` formats. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `arvan_helm_uninstall` by focusing on installation actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `arvan_k8s_apply`. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where install/upgrade is appropriate, or when to avoid it. The description only states the action without context.

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