Install app

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, but the description adds substantive behavior they do not: the default dry_run=true means nothing is installed, ABI mismatch is a refusal while a density mismatch is not, and -r/-t/-g flags are applied by default. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 most consequential fact, the dry_run=true default, is front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (input forms, listing mode, split selection, default flags, alternatives). No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each mode returns (a list of installable files newest-first with the full path to pass as apk_path) and what a dry run reports (files, command, device, chosen splits). For a 7-parameter destructive tool with zero required parameters, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter's role. The description still adds cross-parameter semantics the schema only implies, notably that dir is ignored when apk_path is given and how bundle splits are selected from ABI/density/locale with a refusal rule for ABI.

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 and resource (installs an APK from the server's file roots) and immediately scopes the operation by naming the accepted inputs (single APK, split array, bundle). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming adb_uninstall and adb_app as the removal paths, so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives: 'start there when the user says "install what I downloaded"' for the no-apk_path listing mode, and 'The reverse is adb_uninstall, or adb_app for a removal with a backup and a rollback.' It also states the precondition that only dry_run=false actually installs, which is the single most important routing fact.

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