install_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does but does not mention side effects (e.g., persistence, reversibility), required permissions, idempotency (handling of already-installed apps), or what happens to the site state. The example and app-type list do not address these behavioral aspects.

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 well-structured: it starts with the purpose, provides a practical example, and then lists the valid app types. The list of app types makes the description longer but is necessary for a parameter with an enum. No redundant fluff is present.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. The description explains what and when, but does not cover return values, error cases, prerequisites (beyond 'current site'), or edge cases like duplicate installation. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the numeric-to-name mapping for app types and a usage example, which provides some extra context beyond the schema. However, the enum values are already self-explanatory, and the added mapping is not essential for using the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Install (register) an application on the current site so its features become usable.' It uses a specific verb ('Install'), names the resource ('application'), and describes the outcome. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uninstall_app, update_app, and list_apps.

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 description gives a concrete use case: 'For example, automations need the "automation" app installed first.' This implies when to use the tool (when an app's features are required) and provides clear context. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear.

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