authorize_install_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says what 'authorize' produces (a boolean verdict, a rewritten command, a block?), whether the command is executed, or how allow_review's human-approval step interacts with the outcome. For a security-gating tool this is a significant gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys the verb, the resource, and the timing constraint. Nothing to trim.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral context — yet it omits the decision semantics, the effect of each policy parameter, and what an agent should do with the result. Too thin for a policy-gating tool with a human-review path.

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% and the enum on new_package_policy is documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning about command syntax, the interaction between allow_review and new_package_policy, or default behavior, so 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?

States a specific verb (Authorize) and resource (agent-generated install command) with a clear timing constraint (before it reaches a package manager). The gating/pre-flight role is unambiguous, though there are no siblings to differentiate against.

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 phrase 'before it reaches a package manager' implies the call must happen prior to execution, which is genuine context. But it gives no when-not guidance, no indication of what to do when authorization fails, and no discussion of alternatives or prerequisites.

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