bgi_install_js

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the key behavioral trait: this is a filesystem write that copies an entire directory into a fixed path, and it names the concrete artifacts written. It omits failure behavior when the directory already exists, whether network access to the official repo is required, and what is returned on success or partial failure.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first defines the action, source, destination and payload; the second routes to the follow-up tools. Nothing is redundant and the core operation is front-loaded.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers source, destination, contents and next steps — enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is error/overwrite semantics and return information, which are only partially covered by the schema's `overwrite` field.

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%, so both `name` (directory under repo js/, e.g. AutoCommission) and `overwrite` (default false) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that `name` becomes the destination folder name; baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 (a whole JS script directory from the official repo) plus the exact destination path User\JsScript\<name>\ and what gets installed (manifest.json, main.js, resources). It also names the sibling tools (bgi_run_js, bgi_add_group_to_onedragon) that follow it, so the agent can place it in a workflow without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear downstream context: after installing, use bgi_run_js to create/run a group or bgi_add_group_to_onedragon for the daily pipeline. It does not state prerequisites such as where the valid `name` comes from (e.g., bgi_list_js_scripts / bgi_repo_index) or when not to call it (already installed without overwrite).

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