disable_plugin

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that enabled:false is hardcoded on write success, that modules stay LOADED until editor restart (so a still-working feature is not evidence of failure), and that referenced assets break on next start. These are exactly the non-obvious side effects an agent needs and cannot infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 action in one sentence, then two focused WARNING clauses and a Returns block. Slightly long, but each warning conveys a distinct, non-redundant risk, so the length is mostly earned.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies a return shape (plugin_name, enabled, project_saved, note) plus the restart caveat. Together with the annotation safety profile, everything needed to call and interpret the result is 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description ('as in its .uplugin file, not a path') already carries the semantic distinction. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Turn a plugin off'), names the exact artifact mutated (the .uproject), and notes it persists to disk. This is clearly distinguished from the inverse enable_plugin operation without needing to open either 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 concrete prerequisites: 'check get_plugin_status and the referencers first' before disabling a plugin with referenced assets. It does not explicitly route to enable_plugin as the counterpart, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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