Show the MagicSword agent install one-liner for a platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful fact that there is 'No API call' -- i.e., this is a static, side-effect-free local generator rather than a server round-trip. It does not state the return shape or whether output varies with account state, so it is a meaningful addition rather than a complete one.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: what it returns is front-loaded, the implementation fact ('No API call') follows, and the usage scenario comes last. 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what the return contains (install + enroll commands) and that it is static, which is essentially everything needed to call it correctly. It could say slightly more about the exact format of the returned commands, but the gap is minor.

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% and the single platform parameter is an enum with its own description, so the schema carries the full burden here. The description only restates 'on a given platform' and adds no syntax, defaults, or behavior for the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Returns) and a precisely scoped resource (the install + enroll commands for the MagicSword agent on a given platform). An agent can tell this apart from mint_enrollment_token or list_agent_releases without inspecting either schema, because the description names both the payload and the platform scoping.

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 use context: helping a user onboard a new endpoint and handing them the exact one-liner. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., mint_enrollment_token) or when NOT to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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