prepare_adapter

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it records agent-created provenance under the workspace lock and does not import plugin code or execute a workload. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies side effects and exclusions, and the third gives a direct next step. There is no redundant language.

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 two well-described parameters, the idempotent/non-destructive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a call. It covers side effects, non-effects, and next step, though it does not explain how the approval affects downstream capability-setup flows or what state change is visible afterward.

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 both 'adapter' and 'distribution' already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces exactness ('exact installed package identity') but does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb and object: 'Approve one installed third-party adapter by exact installed package identity.' It further differentiates the tool by stating it does not install, import, or execute, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools such as start_capability_setup or run_* tools.

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 clear context that this is an approval/provenance action after an adapter is already installed, and it tells the agent to call list_capabilities again afterward. It states explicit non-uses (does not install, import, or execute), though it does not name a specific alternative tool for those actions, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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