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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing that the new config replaces the previous one and that an activated plug later acts on published posts automatically, in public, without re-prompting. That consequence is exactly what an agent needs to reason about before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: action first, consequence/warning second, dependency last. No filler, and the most consequential facts are front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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 destructive, auto-acting mutation with no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, public automatic behavior, and where to source valid inputs. It stops short of covering failure modes or confirming whether config is optional, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents account_id, plug_key, activated, and config. The description's only parameter-related content ('get valid plug keys and config fields from list_account_plugs') restates what the schema's own descriptions already say, adding no syntax or format detail beyond them.

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 pair (turn on/off and set configuration) plus the exact resource (a plug for one connected account), and clarifies the replace semantics. An agent can distinguish this from list_account_plugs or any other sibling 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 clear prerequisites (get valid keys/fields from list_account_plugs) and a strong usage directive (confirm the exact plug and settings with the user first). It does not name an explicit when-not or a competing tool, but the routing context is solid.

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