memoryguard_provider_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds: it states what is installed/repaired, per-provider differences, the personal-binding guarantee, the admin requirement, and idempotence. This goes well beyond a generic 'install provider' statement.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then packs per-provider behavior, binding guarantees, privileges, and idempotence into the remaining clauses efficiently.

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?

The tool is a complex install/repair operation with no output schema and no annotations, but the description covers the main prerequisites, side-effect scope, and behavioral guarantees an agent needs before invoking. It could mention what a successful call returns, but the description is still complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful provider-specific semantics: Claude/Codex/Cursor get the full hook path while TRAE falls back to MCP+rules, and it clarifies binding behavior tied to agent_instance_id. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Install/repair the provider's global MCP, redirect rules, and supported user-level lifecycle Hook.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like memory guard memory operations or binding queries, and it even differentiates supported providers and the TRAE fallback behavior.

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?

It provides clear context for when to call this tool: to install or repair provider-level MCP, redirect rules, and lifecycle hooks, while also requiring admin capability and noting idempotence. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to avoid, but the usage conditions are specific enough to guide selection.

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