manage_install_reason

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool may write but is not destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it only works on Arch Linux, and the three actions have different write implications. No contradictions with 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 relatively concise and well-structured, starting with a [MAINTENANCE] tag and listing actions and examples. It could be slightly trimmed without losing value, but it earns its length.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main actions and their effects. It explains the return for 'list' but not for 'mark_*' actions; however, those likely return success/failure, which is implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds examples that clarify when package_name is required, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema and enums convey.

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 uses a clear verb 'managing install reasons' and specifies three distinct actions ('list', 'mark_explicit', 'mark_dependency') with precise outcomes. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'manage_orphans' by focusing on install reason management.

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 provides explicit use cases for each action and gives multiple examples. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, the context and examples are clear enough for correct selection.

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