fl_install

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it names what is overwritten (an older copy of the controller script), where state lives (the registry, which FL rewrites on close), the failure mode when FL is open, and the exact return keys {ok, installed, bridge, changed, midi, next}. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential trigger and prerequisite, and every sentence carries operational information. It is dense and somewhat run-on in the two enumerated steps, but nothing is padding, so it stays efficient without being maximal.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return shape, and it covers prerequisites, platform scope, side effects, and the next step in the workflow. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and when to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description mentions a config key (fl_hardware) that the call writes, which is contextual rather than argument-related, and there is nothing further to document.

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 and resource ('Set up the live link to FL') and then enumerates the two concrete actions it performs, so an agent knows exactly what happens without opening anything. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fl_probe, fl_call, and fl_exec, which are referenced as downstream steps rather than substitutes.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('needed once per install, and again after this folder moves'), a prerequisite ('Close FL first'), a platform constraint ('Windows with FL Studio only'), and the follow-up action ('start FL and call fl_probe'). It even names the conditional case where the MIDI port step is skipped.

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