install_hda

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts: the install is scoped to the current session, and the 'force' flag triggers reinstall when an HDA is already loaded. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes (bad/missing file), or persistence across sessions.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and tight, with the useful 'force' clarification. The 'ctx: MCP context.' line is boilerplate for an injected framework argument rather than an agent-facing parameter, so it is mild dead weight.

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?

A mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema needs to describe return/error behavior and environment prerequisites; the description covers none of this. An agent cannot tell what a successful install looks like or what happens when the file is invalid or Houdini is not connected.

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 is the only source. It maps both parameters, but 'file_path: HDA file path' merely restates the schema title, while 'force: Force reinstall even if already loaded' genuinely adds semantics by explaining the conflict condition.

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+resource ('Install an HDA file') and scopes it ('into the current session'), which distinguishes it from create_hda, update_hda, and uninstall_hda in spirit. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must Houdini be connected?), and no routing to alternatives such as reload_hda or list_installed_hdas. The idea that installation is session-scoped is only implied by the phrase 'into the current session'.

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