kernel_store_install

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is a mutating operation that downloads, installs, and then activates ('Installs the signed .kernl and activates it if entitled'), plus the authentication/entitlement requirement. It omits reinstall/overwrite behavior, failure modes for missing entitlement, and rollback, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the prerequisite, then the resulting side effects. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation, the auth requirement, and the conditional activation. For an install-and-activate operation the remaining gaps (idempotency on repeat calls, behavior when not entitled) are modest but real given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already gives an example value and points to kernel_store_browse for discovery. The description adds no further meaning about the slug (format constraints, case sensitivity, whether it must exist in the store), so this sits at the schema-driven baseline.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Download and install') on a specific resource ('a paid extension from the Kernl store'), and the 'paid'/'signed .kernl' qualifiers narrow it relative to generic install siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so the agent must infer the boundary with kernel_extensions_install_bundle or kernel_marketplace_install.

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?

It states a concrete precondition: the caller needs a license that includes the extension, and that license drives authentication. That is clear usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do for free or unlicensed extensions) and no sibling is named as the alternative path.

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