icon_install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the alpha-flattening behavior, the exact outputs written (AppIcon.appiconset and .appfactory/verify/icon.json), and that a downstream gate depends on it. It omits idempotency/overwrite behavior and any auth or failure-mode notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and pipeline details after. Dense with jargon and nested parentheses, but each clause (source, prerequisites, outputs, gate) carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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 pipeline context and written artifacts are covered. However, the required app_dir is undefined and mutation semantics (overwrite, permissions) are absent, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess around.

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, and it only partly does: it effectively documents the 'source' default (design/icon.png, the 1024×1024 master). The required 'app_dir' parameter is never explained, leaving the single mandatory argument undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('the Claude Design app icon') with the exact source artifact and destination. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the upstream tools (design_export_png, design_record_upload) whose outputs it consumes, though it does not explicitly contrast with icon_generate.

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 is only implied through the pipeline parentheses ('already uploaded + recorded') and the note that the icon gate requires the verify artifact. There is no explicit 'use when X vs icon_generate' guidance, so the agent must infer ordering and alternatives.

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