unload_game_feature_plugin

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the ASYNC fire-and-return pattern, that the caller must poll for state, the idempotent no-op behavior with already_unloaded=true, and the non-obvious interaction where an active plugin is still loaded and thus unloaded by this call. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and that annotations alone (destructive/idempotent) don't convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb/resource leads, then behavioral notes, then return shape. The explicit Returns block is justified since no output schema exists, though the prose is slightly packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape and explains the async polling contract, idempotency, and active-state caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this mutation is missing.

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 plugin_url, plugin_name, and keep_registered, including precedence and defaults. The description echoes 'by name or URL' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Unload a Game Feature Plugin') and positions it relative to siblings by calling it 'the complement of activate/deactivate.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from activate_game_feature_plugin and deactivate_game_feature_plugin.

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 context and a follow-up action (poll get_game_feature_plugin_state) and clarifies the edge case that an active plugin is still loaded and gets unloaded. It stops short of explicitly enumerating when to prefer this over the sibling operations, but the 'complement' framing plus the polling directive leaves little ambiguity.

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