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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful operational detail — refresh_every allowed values, the 35-character description cap, the path vs body vs query placement, and the shape-matching semantics of hideAuthorPluginError's message — but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects of hiding an error row.

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-loads the overall purpose in one sentence, then organizes the four operations as a scannable bullet list. It is long, but the length is driven by four distinct operations with large parameter sets, so little is wasted; a future editor could trim repeated parameter descriptions shared between create and update.

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 multi-action, nested-parameter tool with no output schema and only wrapper-level schema docs, the description covers all four operations and their inputs. It omits return-value behavior and error/destructiveness consequences, but the annotations carry the safety dimension, leaving only minor gaps.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 100% but only for the generic 'action' and 'params' wrapper; the real payload is a nested object the schema does not document. The description compensates by enumerating every nested parameter per action, including location (body/path/query), allowed enum values, and semantic notes such as installation_url being the OAuth authorize page. This is genuinely additive over the schema.

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 uses specific verbs (create, update, hide, unhide) on a specific resource (third-party authored plugins and their error rows), and enumerates the four sub-operations with their parameter sets. It is clearly the write counterpart to AccountAuthoringReadTool in the sibling list, though it never states that relationship explicitly.

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 action list implies when each operation applies, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing between createMyPlugin vs updateMyPlugin (e.g. update requires an existing id), nor routing advice versus AccountPluginsTool or AccountPluginSettingsWriteTool. Usage is inferable from the action names rather than stated.

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