install_preform_server

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes well beyond that by disclosing download size, signature verification, user-owned installation location, the requirement to ask the user, and idempotent no-op behavior. This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects and safety.

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, each carrying distinct information: what the tool does, when to use it, and that it is idempotent. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter installation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being installed, where, why it is safe to repeat, and the user-consent requirement. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 only parameter, force, so the schema fully documents parameter meaning. The description does not need to add more, and adding none is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 clear chain of actions (download, verify signature, install) on a specific resource (PreFormServer from Formlabs) and adds a distinctive detail (user-owned folder). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like preform_status or health_check because the verb and resource are explicit.

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 strong usage context: ask the user first and call safely again because it no-ops when already latest. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of a perfect 5, but the conditions for calling are clear.

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