Install App

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the exact auth requirement ('organization admin access'), notes authorization is server-enforced, states the semantic effect on the cluster, mandates user confirmation, and even summarizes the return shape. Nothing here contradicts the annotations; idempotency and non-destructiveness are consistent with 'install.'

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?

Four short, bold-labeled sections with the purpose front-loaded; an agent can scan it in seconds. It is slightly padded by the redundant sentence 'Authorization is enforced by the RawTree API,' which restates that auth is required without new information.

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?

For a 3-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers everything needed: purpose, auth, safety warning, confirmation requirement, and the returned fields. No critical decision input is left to inference.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema (appId from list-apps, cluster from list-clusters, organization). The description only echoes these names in the confirmation sentence and adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'Install a RawTree app on one cluster,' and adds the effect ('enable its native endpoints'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like uninstall-app and list-apps in practice, but it never names an alternative, so it falls short of the explicit sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete pre-call precondition ('You MUST confirm the exact organization, cluster name, and app ID with the user'), which is real usage guidance an agent must obey. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions make installation inappropriate, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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