install_gene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it discloses that phenotype, metadata, and a compiled WASM artifact are downloaded, and that the artifact is verified against declared size and sha256. It leaves gaps on auth requirements and failure behavior when verification fails.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the core action and its source lead, the payload/verification detail follows, and the prerequisite closes. No filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers purpose, source, payload, integrity verification, and input prerequisite. It omits auth/network requirements and the success/failure response shape, which an install-from-remote tool arguably should mention.

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 the schema already documents gene_id, force, and project_root (including the rollback_gene snapshot behavior). The description only adds where a valid gene_id comes from, which the schema does not say.

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 specific verb (Install) and resource (a Gene from the Rotifer Cloud Registry) with explicit scope (into the local project), and distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings like search_genes and get_gene_detail that only retrieve metadata.

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 states the prerequisite ('Requires a valid gene_id from search_genes or get_gene_detail'), routing the agent to the right upstream tools. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or how it relates to compile_gene/run_gene in a workflow.

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