install_package

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

Discloses the full installation flow, parameter effects (dry_run, force, unlink), and the use of PyEZ vs CLI. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well, though it omits failure/rollback details.

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?

Well-structured with a summary line, flow steps, and parameter descriptions. The unlink explanation is thorough but slightly verbose; overall efficient for the complexity.

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?

Covers all parameters and the overall process. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value description is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Adds rich meaning to all 5 parameters beyond the schema (0% coverage): hostname must exist in config.ini, dry_run shows what would be done, force skips checks, unlink explains low-flash usage with technical detail, config_path default search.

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?

Clearly states 'Install firmware package on device with pre-flight checks' and outlines the full upgrade flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rollback_package or copy_package.

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?

Provides specific guidance for when to use the unlink parameter (low-flash devices like EX2300/EX3400) and explains dry_run behavior. However, it does not compare against other sibling tools like check_upgrade_readiness or copy_package.

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