plugin_install

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with installation being a non-destructive write. The description adds context: daemon handles permissions, plugin may need enabling, and returns attrs (Id, Name, etc.). Does not detail error cases or side effects, but sufficient given annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a one-line purpose, then details and workflow. Slightly lengthy but all sentences add value. Could be slightly more terse but remains efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description includes expected return keys (Id, Name, Enabled, Settings, Config). Covers pre-requisites (Docker Hub reference), post-install steps, and parameter details. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: remote is a Docker Hub reference in 'author/name:tag' form with example, local_name is an alias defaulting to remote. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Install a plugin from Docker Hub.' It specifies the verb 'install' and resource 'plugin', and distinguishes from sibling tools like plugin_inspect and plugin_enable.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: use plugin_inspect to confirm state, plugin_enable to activate, optionally plugin_configure for settings, and mentions plugin_list and plugin_remove for listing and uninstalling. Also notes that the daemon handles permissions non-interactively.

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