device.install_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly marks the operation as 'device mutation' and 'risk:dangerous' and says it may 'replace' an APK, implying overwriting behavior. This is valuable safety-relevant information beyond the schema. It does not detail data-loss nuances or interaction with an existing installation, but it covers the essential risk profile.

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 one compact sentence with useful risk tags front-loaded, and every phrase contributes meaning. It is not bloated. It loses a point only because the brevity contributes to missing parameter and usage details, though those are penalized elsewhere; structurally it is efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the tool description should provide enough context to call the tool correctly. It does not explain the meaning or optionality of serial, the expected format or location of apkPath, prerequisites, or what happens upon successful installation. For a mutation tool labeled 'dangerous', this is insufficiently 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 0%, so the description must define the parameters, but it only mentions 'APK' generically and never explains 'apkPath' or 'serial'. It is unclear whether apkPath is host-local or on-device, whether serial is optional or required, or how the tool selects a device when serial is omitted. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Install or replace an APK on an Android device.' It explicitly targets Android, which separates it from sibling ios.install_app, and 'replace' distinguishes it from device.uninstall_app and other device-related tools. This is specific enough for an agent to understand exactly what the tool does.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the mention of 'Android device' and the sibling ios.install_app suggest when this tool should be used versus the iOS equivalent. However, the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., APK path source, device connectivity, whether serial is required), or when to prefer a sibling like device.uninstall_app first. It is minimally adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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