Install an Android APK file on a connected device using its file path. Specify a target device ID to choose among multiple devices.
Install an APK file on a connected Android device
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apk_path | Yes | Path to the APK file on the host machine | |
| device_id | No | Target device ID. If omitted, uses the default device. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects like overwriting an existing app, prerequisites such as device connectivity and permissions, or possible failure modes. The description only states the core action without additional behavioral 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and object, making it immediately scannable.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema fully documents the required and optional inputs, making basic invocation possible. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify success/error reporting, installation side effects, or device prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent deciding how to handle failures.
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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for both apk_path and device_id, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as path format or how the default device is selected.
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') with a clear resource ('APK file') and target ('connected Android device'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like launch_app, uninstall_app, and clear_app_data.
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 intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or any exclusions such as needing the device to be unlocked or having an existing installation. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.