deny-scripts

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying the change is confined to package.json policy (no install execution) and that npm 12+ is required. It stops short of saying whether the change is reversible or what happens if a package is already allowed.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the blast radius, then the prerequisite. Nothing redundant.

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?

Covers the essential behavioral facts an agent needs (policy-only mutation, npm 12+ floor), but with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, it leaves the 'path' parameter and the result of the call unexplained.

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% for two required params. 'Named dependencies' hints at the packages array, but 'path' is never explained (project root? package.json location?) and no format or limit guidance is given for either parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource — deny install scripts for named dependencies — and pins the scope with 'across all versions', which separates it from approve-scripts/pending-scripts without needing the schema.

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?

'Only changes package.json policy' implicitly signals this is a policy-only operation, not an install blocker, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. approve-scripts). Usage must be inferred from siblings.

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