Setup-Device

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutating nature (install, enable) and the target, but gives no detail on side effects, prerequisites, idempotency, or failure behavior. Core behavior is clear, but deeper operational traits are missing.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The functional action comes first, and the usage condition second, making the description easy to scan and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits any explanation of the `force` parameter, which is a significant gap for correct invocation. It also lacks details about side effects or prerequisites, leaving the description incomplete for an agent that must decide when and how 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 schema's only parameter is `force` (boolean, default false), and the description says nothing about it. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to guess what `force` does; the description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 names a specific action (install the Portal helper app and enable its accessibility service) on a clear resource, and contrasts it with a sibling (State-Tool) to distinguish its use case. The verb and object are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when State-Tool is slow or the fast MCP Helper backend is unavailable') and references the alternative tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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