editor_install_bridge

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine value beyond that: an environment-variable prerequisite and an explicit boundary that it does not execute or auto-start scripts. Slight tension with idempotentHint=false given the 'update' semantics, but not a contradiction.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler—action first, prerequisite second, side-effect boundary last.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers prerequisite, scope, and side-effect boundaries. Minor gaps remain: what happens when the env var is absent (error vs no-op) and what the bridge installation writes.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema requires no semantic elaboration; baseline 4 applies. No parameter behavior is 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?

States a specific verb pair (install/update) and a precise resource (this project's namespaced Lua bridge), with an explicit scope restriction to 'this project's.' It is clearly distinct from the read/status siblings, though it doesn't name an alternative directly.

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 'Requires SERIOUS_EDITOR_ALLOW_INSTALL=1' line gives a prerequisite for use, but there's no explicit statement of when to choose this versus alternatives (e.g., re-running to update vs first install) or when not to use it.

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