Install Package

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, but the description adds some value by specifying 'using the SF CLI' and noting the wait parameter for installation duration. It does not disclose potential side effects, required authentication scope, or what happens on failure, but the annotations already flag the write nature, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, concise summary, but then redundantly restates all four parameters that are already present in the schema with identical descriptions. This duplication wastes space and reduces the efficiency of the text, though it remains short overall.

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 covers the core operation, parameter purposes, and default behavior (targetOrg defaults to SF_ALIAS env var). Since there is no output schema, it does not mention return values or output format, which is a gap, but the tool's operation is straightforward and the description is generally sufficient.

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?

The description repeats the parameter list that is already fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so basing on the schema coverage gives a 3, which is the neutral baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('installs'), a resource ('a package version'), and a target ('into a target org'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates from siblings like sf_uninstall_package and sf_create_package_version by focusing on the install action.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: installing package versions into target orgs, and notes it supports both managed and unlocked packages. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for uninstalling), though the sibling list makes that inferable.

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