opencode_mcpb_install

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

The description goes beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint: false) by detailing the actual modification of the config file, the dry_run option to preview changes, and the return format. It does not disclose edge-case behavior like overwriting existing server definitions, but the provided context is substantive.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, return format, and examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the first line repeats the tool name in all caps, which adds slight redundancy. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 an install tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it does it (unpack, extract manifest, merge), return values, and example invocations. It lacks explicit handling of conflict or error cases, but given the presence of an output schema and safe dry_run option, the information is largely complete.

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% for all three parameters, so the description does not need to explain them further. The examples minimally illustrate usage (e.g., source path and name_override), but no extra semantic detail beyond the schema is provided, which aligns with the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Install') and the resource ('MCPB bundle') with a specific target ('into opencode config'). It differentiates itself from the sibling tools, none of which perform installation, by explaining the unpacking and merging process.

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 context is clear: this tool is used for installing MCPB bundles, with no need for alternatives among the listed siblings. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternative tools, but the uniqueness of the task makes the usage context sufficiently clear.

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