install_wrapper

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint, but the description adds critical context: existing DLLs from ENB/ReShade/dgVoodoo/DXVK are backed up and restored by uninstall_wrapper. It also discloses that a left-behind wrapper keeps tracing every run, making the mutation and cleanup obligations explicit.

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 tight paragraphs with no filler: the action, the exact use case, and the hazard/cleanup warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping condition appears near the front.

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 fully covers the manual-route rationale, the failure mode it solves, the DLL conflict behavior, and the cleanup obligation—essential safety context. It falls short only by leaving three parameters undocumented, which is a real but secondary gap given how well the workflow is explained.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly maps to game_exe ('next to a game exe'). The parameters api, force, and trace_file are never explained, so an agent would still need to guess their meaning and effect.

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?

States a concrete action ('Drop apitrace's wrapper DLL next to a game exe') and labels it 'the manual tracing route', immediately distinguishing it from trace_launch. The resource and scope are clear, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this when trace_launch produces nothing, with concrete scenarios such as launcher-spawned games and DRM re-launches. It also says the wrapper works even from Steam and warns to uninstall when done, giving clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance.

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