Install from App Repository

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

The description discloses that this is a MUTATIVE, LONG-RUNNING operation that blocks until completion or timeout, adding meaningful detail beyond the annotations (which only mark it destructive and non-idempotent). It also mentions the default timeout of 30 minutes, providing crucial operational context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence provides distinct value: action/resource, behavioral caveat, and usage context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's mutative and long-running nature, the description covers expected behavior (blocking), timeout, and typical use case. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns after completion (e.g., success status, installation logs), leaving a minor gap in expected outcomes.

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% with detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the schema carries the heavy lifting. The description adds value by explaining the overall blocking/timeout behavior and referencing list_company_apps to find scope and sys_id, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of key parameters. However, it doesn't introduce new parameter-specific details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install') and identifies a precise resource: applications from the company's ServiceNow application repository via the CI/CD API. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like install_store_app by specifying the company repository rather than the store, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Typically used for deploying custom applications across instances (e.g., dev -> test -> prod).' It also directs users to a related sibling tool (list_company_apps) for finding required parameters, which serves as an implicit prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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