manage_install_reason

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the non-destructive modifications. The description adds context about orphan management and auto-removal. However, it does not detail side effects or permissions needed, leaving room for improvement.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear header, bullet-like listing of actions, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers all necessary context: actions, requirements, platform constraint, and examples. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 already describes both parameters, but the description adds value by linking each action to parameter requirements, providing examples that illustrate usage, and clarifying that package_name is required for certain actions.

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 clearly states it is a unified tool for managing package install reasons, with three specific actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_pacman_conf or install_package_secure by focusing on install reason management. Examples further clarify purpose.

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 explains when to use each action: list for listing explicit packages, mark_explicit to prevent orphan removal, mark_dependency to allow auto-removal. It also specifies the tool only works on Arch Linux. No explicit when-not, but the action enum provides clear alternatives.

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