yaaif_desktop_tool_package_install

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent/upgrade behavior and the platform default when omitted. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether existing data is preserved), permissions required, or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. It covers some behavioral aspects but not enough to be fully transparent for a mutating operation.

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 two sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the upgrade behavior and platform note. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and the platform default. However, it omits crucial details about worker selection (worker_id vs worker_ids), does not hint at return values, and does not indicate whether the operation is synchronous or requires polling. These gaps could lead an agent to invoke it incorrectly.

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 only 25% (package_id has a description). The description partially explains platform ('Platform is optional — control-plane uses the worker's OS when omitted') but fails to clarify the distinction between worker_id and worker_ids, which are both present and seem to serve overlapping purposes. It does not explain how to choose between them or if they are mutually exclusive. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 action: installing or reinstalling a Package Registry archive onto desktop workers. It specifies the resource (Package Registry archive) and the target (desktop workers), and it differentiates from siblings like publish (upload) and upgrade (explicitly mentioned re-run upgrades, though the upgrade tool exists). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that re-running on a worker upgrades to the current version, giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like yaaif_desktop_tool_package_upgrade, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit alternatives and conditions for selecting this tool over others in the same domain.

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