install_packages

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: destructive operation (with destructiveHint annotation), requires confirm_token for actual installation, and supports synchronous polling via wait. Adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and include critical usage details. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a package installation tool, but lacks explanation of return values (output schema exists) and does not warn about potential side effects of destructive action beyond the annotation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by explaining confirm_token and wait. It does not explain query or packages, leaving ambiguity about the matching mechanism and package format.

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 clearly states the tool installs packages on matched machines, with specific instructions for dry run and polling. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like upgrade_packages and remove_packages.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: perform a dry run first by omitting confirm_token, and set wait=true for polling. However, it does not differentiate when to use this tool over alternatives like upgrade_packages.

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