install_app

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the effect of installing ('features become usable') and the dependency relationship between apps. It omits idempotency, behavior when already installed, and permission requirements, which is why it is not a 5.

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 opening sentence is crisp and front-loaded, but the trailing enumeration of eighteen app types duplicates the schema enum and consumes most of the description's length. That bulk is not fully earned since the same values are already structured data.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and the key dependency case, and annotations cover the safety profile. Remaining gaps are secondary details such as idempotency and what is_active does when the app is already present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the enum of app names. The description's numeric app-type mapping (0=product_review, etc.) is extra information but largely mirrors the enum values already present, and is_active is not explained at all. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (install/register) and resource (application on the current site) plus the outcome (features become usable). This clearly separates it from siblings like uninstall_app, update_app, and list_apps without needing to open a schema.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'automations need the "automation" app installed first,' which tells the agent this is a prerequisite step. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (update_app, uninstall_app) or stating when NOT to install, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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