aura_install_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return shape (dependency list, setup steps, file map, fonts), which matters since there is no output schema. However it never resolves the central ambiguity of a tool named 'install': whether it writes anything, requires auth, or is purely read-only text retrieval.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence's competitive framing ('goes beyond the official Aura MCP') is marginally salesy but does convey a capability differentiator.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned artifacts, partially offsetting the missing output schema. It still leaves identifier semantics and any side effects or prerequisites unaddressed.

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 0% and neither parameter is typed or documented in the schema. The description only implies that the id/slug refer to a 'free component' and adds no guidance on which identifier to supply or whether both are needed.

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 names the resource (a component) and enumerates the concrete payload (dependency list, setup steps, file map, fonts), so an agent knows what comes back. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling aura_get_component, and the name 'install' collides with the description's implication that this only returns paste-ready text.

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 only usage signal is the qualifier 'for a free component', which hints at a scope limit but never states it as a rule or names an alternative. Nothing tells the agent when to call this instead of aura_get_component or aura_install_skill.

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