install_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether an existing module is overwritten, whether validation runs first, what permissions are needed, or whether the operation is reversible. 'Compatibility alias' is the only behavioral hint, and it is ambiguous.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key identifying phrase ('Compatibility alias') front-loaded. It wastes no words, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects, failure modes, and how it relates to the many sibling module tools (upsert_module, validate_module_package, reload_module_runtime). None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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% for the single package_json parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, size, or content guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a resource (Module package) and an action, but hedges between two different operations ('installing or publishing') and labels itself a 'compatibility alias'. An agent cannot tell from this whether it installs locally, publishes remotely, or both, nor how it differs from the sibling upsert_module or validate_module_package.

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?

'Compatibility alias' faintly suggests it is a legacy shim that duplicates newer functionality, but no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing it over upsert_module is given. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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