post_inbox_apps_install

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or the outcome of installation. The POST method implies mutation, but nothing about reversibility, validation, or error conditions is mentioned.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and free of fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and endpoint. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, but for sheer conciseness it scores high.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the installation entails, what a successful response looks like, or any constraints. An agent would need to infer significant context from parameter names and the sibling set.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., that userId=0 means account-wide) beyond what schema already says.

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 the action: 'Installs your Inbox App for an account.' It includes the HTTP endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling inbox app tools like post_inbox_apps_message, the verb 'Installs' is specific enough to convey the primary function.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a publishedInboxAppId first, or any conditions under which installation should be done. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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