prepare_adapter

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

The description discloses that the action 'records agent-created provenance under the workspace lock' and explicitly negates installation/import/execution, enriching the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations. No contradiction exists; the lock and provenance details go beyond the structured 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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action and then add necessary safety and workflow context. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter interface, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the operation's effects, exclusions, and next step. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters precisely: adapter is 'returned by list_capabilities' and distribution is the 'exact installed distribution name reported for this adapter.' The description adds only the general notion of 'exact installed package identity' without syntax or format details, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Approve one installed third-party adapter by exact installed package identity,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the approval action from installation, importing, or executing a workload.

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 provides workflow guidance by instructing 'Call list_capabilities again' and clarifies that the tool does not install, import, or execute a workload. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some usage context implied.

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