installBridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits that this writes to the user's filesystem, whether it overwrites an existing panel, whether AE must be closed, whether it is idempotent, and what happens if no installation is found. 'Automatically detect' hints at multi-version behavior but does not say whether it installs to one or all detected copies.

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?

One efficiently packed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly overloaded with the literal filename, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, side-effecting install tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and where it writes but leaves the agent without prerequisites, idempotency, or result information (e.g. which installs were detected). Just enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is optional with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'ScriptUI Panels' in the description loosely explains what targetDir overrides (the default install location), adding marginal value beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb (install) and a concrete resource (the mcp-bridge-auto.jsx panel script) plus the exact destination (ScriptUI Panels), which no sibling tool covers. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other installer-type tool exists, but it also stops short of stating a scope limitation an agent could compare against.

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 statement of when this should run (e.g. first-time setup, before other bridge tools work) or how it relates to getInstalledPlugins, which is the nearest sibling. An agent must infer that this is a prerequisite step rather than being told.

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