install

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that .pkg installation 'can take minutes' and that run only affects .elf, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, overwrite behavior, or whether installation is reversible.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the core action, and the path/run behavior is presented as a compact list with no filler. The wording is slightly telegraphic ('run=True also starts the .elf once'), but every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and latency but omits return/result behavior and error handling. An agent could call it correctly, but the picture is incomplete.

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 must compensate, and it does for both parameters: it defines the accepted path formats (.pkg at /data/ps5-mcp/pkg, or an .elf in the Payload Manager library) and the effect of run=True. It does not clarify path syntax beyond these examples, but the added meaning is substantial.

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 and resource ('Install a file from this Mac onto the console') and even names the source platform, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling write tools like launch or uninstall_apps. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains the two accepted input forms (.pkg vs .elf) and that run=True starts the .elf, which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer install over launch/uninstall_apps, nor any prerequisite such as the file already being present on the console.

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