Install library package

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

The description adds behaviorbeyond annotations: it copies/extracts, refuses replacement unless overwrite=true, rejects symlinked directory trees, and returns scope plus resolved paths. Since destructiveHint=true, the overwrite refusal is consistent and enhances the safety profile. It doesn't contradict the 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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences: target formats and modes, project scope prerequisite, and core behavioral constraints and return value. No fluff—each sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description covers installation modes, prerequisites, behavioral safety (overwrite, symlink rejection), and return value. Given 100% schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the project scope requirement (project_dir and the <project_dir>/.tdmcp/packages path) and the legacy dest_dir/<packageName> form, enriching the context for scope and dest_dir parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install') and clearly identifies the resource types (folder, .zip, .tox, manifest) and the two installation scopes (project/user explicit scope, legacy dest_dir form). This distinguishes it from siblings like manage_packages and manage_component.

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?

The description gives an explicit alternative and prerequisite: 'Use inspect_component_manifest first for unknown packages.' It also clarifies when project scope is needed by noting project_dir is required. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with other install-related tools.

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