aura_install_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the license posture (all-rights-reserved per Aura Terms §4) and implies the tool returns a plan rather than mutating state, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether anything is actually installed, or rate limits.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists return contents without padding. The 'Legal drop-in plan' phrasing is slightly jargon-heavy but not wasteful.

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 a 1-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description does describe the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. However, it leaves the input parameter and the tool's side effects completely unexplained, so it is only partially 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?

The single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what identifier is expected (asset id, slug, numeric key?). The one parameter that matters for invocation is left entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('install asset') and enumerates what the tool produces (download URL, preview URL, license, suggested file path), so the agent knows it returns an install plan rather than performing a raw download. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby aura_install_component and aura_install_skill siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only conditional cue is a legal aside ('check page before commercial use'), which is a caution about licensing, not routing between tools.

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