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

Beyond the write/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the downstream consequence (viaSocket reviews the plug and may add missing actions or triggers), the failure semantics ('a failed call never stops the task'), and where identity comes from (the sign-in). These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 call condition, then body fields, then caveats and the exclusion. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical asides are justified rather than filler.

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?

Covers when to call, what to send, failure tolerance, auth source and the alternative tool, which is nearly everything needed for a 5-parameter write with no output schema. The only soft spot is that it never says what the call returns, though the 'failed call never stops the task' note makes inspection unnecessary.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the published values (new_plug | new_action | new_trigger | new_version | connection) that the schema only hints at via an example, ties actionIds to 'just published', and constrains note to 'plain words, never secrets'. It also asserts pluginId is required even though the schema lists no required fields, which is a helpful correction but reveals a slight schema/description mismatch.

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 (report) and event (a publish on the user's own plug), enumerates the publish types, and names the sibling it is not (report_feedback). An agent can distinguish it from list_plugins and report_feedback without opening a schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call once right after you publish'), tells the agent not to ask the user, reassures that failure is non-blocking, and excludes the problem-reporting case by routing to report_feedback. Nothing is left to inference.

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