Tuanjie Package Manager

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged. It does not explain wait_for_upm's blocking behavior, timeouts, or side effects beyond remove/install, so behavioral coverage remains partial.

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-load the purpose and supported actions, then give the pass-through rule. No filler or duplicated schema content beyond the necessary action list.

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 a dispatcher tool with one enum parameter and dynamic additional properties, the description is workable but thin: it omits what wait_for_upm waits on, what list_packages returns, and what the action-specific parameters are called. This weakens an agent's ability to invoke install_package or remove_package correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The one declared parameter, action, is fully enumerated by the JSON schema; the description mostly restates those enum values. The useful extra is that additional action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged, but the description does not name or explain the meaningful per-action parameters.

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 first sentence uses specific verbs (installs, removes, waits for, lists) attached to a concrete resource (UPM packages), and the enumerated action list matches the schema enum. This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from the sibling Unity/Tuanjie tools.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool for UPM package operations, with the action enum delimiting the supported operations. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but no sibling tool claims package management, so the resource scoping is sufficient.

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