Install Local Dependencies (consent required)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses that consent:false is a safe dry-run that installs nothing, that consent:true runs the package manager (may need sudo) and npm (network), i.e. privilege escalation and network side effects. This is exactly the behavioral context a mutating install tool needs.

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 sentences, zero waste. The trigger context is front-loaded and the behavioral consequences of each consent value follow immediately, so a reader gets the actionable facts in the first pass.

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-param install tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, mode selection, safety gate, privilege and network implications. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and targets is fully specified by its enum plus the 'default all' description. The description goes beyond the schema for consent by tying it to the dry-run/real-run distinction and the user-approval gate, adding genuine safety semantics rather than restating 'true runs the install commands'.

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 (local dependencies), and frames the exact trigger: rendering fails because ffmpeg, Blender or the Remotion toolchain is missing. An agent can distinguish this from generation/pipeline siblings like run_cinema_pipeline or generate_image without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use ('when rendering fails because X is missing') and, crucially, a when-to-use-which-mode rule: consent:false for detection only, consent:true only after explicit user agreement. This is a decision rule an agent can act on directly.

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