install_hda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the force parameter's behavior ('Force reinstall even if already loaded'), which implies that without force it may skip or error if already loaded. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creation of nodes, session state changes), return values, or failure modes. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 extremely concise—one sentence stating purpose, followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff. The args section is neatly formatted. Minor inefficiency: it includes 'ctx: MCP context' which is not in the schema, but that is a small redundancy.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is thin. It omits what happens after a successful install (e.g., does the HDA become available as a node?), any requirements (e.g., file exist, valid HDA), and error conditions. An agent lacks enough context to fully anticipate the outcome, though it can call with the given parameters.

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 schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It explains file_path as 'HDA file path' and force as 'Force reinstall even if already loaded', which provides some context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify path formats, file types, or detailed force semantics (e.g., does it overwrite existing?). It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action ('Install an HDA file') and a clear resource ('into the current session'). The verb distinguishes it from siblings like uninstall_hda and reload_hda, and the resource clarifies scope. The purpose is unambiguous and does not restate the tool name.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as reload_hda, update_hda, or create_hda. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions where this should be preferred, or exclusions (e.g., 'if already loaded, use reload instead'). An agent would have to infer usage from context.

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