install_package_secure

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description expands with security workflow details, blocking conditions, and dependency on helpers. It does not cover failure handling or rollback, but adds value beyond 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?

The description is detailed with numbered steps but could be more concise. Important context (Arch Linux, sudo) appears late. Front-loading key prerequisites would improve structure.

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?

The description covers lifecycle, prerequisites, and workflow steps. Missing details on error handling, output format, or success indicators, but the single-param nature and destructiveHint reduce the need for extensive context.

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?

Only one parameter (package_name) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool installs a package with comprehensive security checks, using a specific workflow. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_packages or check_updates_dry_run by specifying the security lifecycle and Arch Linux context.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (Arch Linux, sudo, paru/yay) and the install workflow. It implies when to use this tool (for secure installation) but does not explicitly define when not to use it or suggest alternatives like search_aur for information-only needs.

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