remove_plugin

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely new and important trait beyond them: the operation is "not natively undoable," warning the agent that no rollback exists. It stops short of explaining the confirm_delete/dry_run gating or what state the plugin's parameters/presets are left in.

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?

Two tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the irreversibility warning. No filler, though the terseness comes at the cost of the parameter guidance an agent needs for a destructive call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the non-undoable warning covers the main risk. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested request object and zero schema coverage, the definition omits the confirmation/dry-run workflow and expected_revision semantics that an agent must get right before calling.

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 0% and the single required parameter is a nested object with five fields including confirm_delete, dry_run, and expected_revision. The description explains none of them, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance on how to satisfy the "explicit intent" requirement it mentions.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Remove plugin processor"), which is enough to distinguish it from add_plugin, set_plugin_enabled, and set_plugin_parameters. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify the relationship to disabling (set_plugin_enabled=false) versus true removal, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"with explicit intent" hints that deliberate confirmation is required, but the description never says when to prefer removal over disabling, nor what "explicit intent" means operationally (presumably setting confirm_delete). There are no when-not-to-use conditions despite several nearby siblings that offer non-destructive alternatives.

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