reanim_enable_root_pluginEnable a disabled reanimation root plugin by renaming its file from .lua.txt to .lua. Use it to activate plugins for the next script re-run without altering README.
Enable a disabled plugin (.lua.txt -> .lua). Takes effect on re-run. Never touches README.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Disabled plugin filename, e.g. VoidAnchor.lua.txt |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that the change is a file rename, only takes effect on re-run, and explicitly will not touch README. These are non-obvious behavioral traits, though error/permission behavior is still unstated.
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 tight fragments with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, if slightly abrupt.
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 single-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already declare the write/openWorld profile, the description supplies the key mechanic and two important caveats. Nothing essential for invocation 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 coverage is 100% (the file param is fully described with an example), so the schema carries this dimension. The description only reinforces the filename convention via '.lua.txt -> .lua' and adds no syntax beyond the 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?
States a specific verb (Enable) and resource (plugin), and explains the concrete mechanism as a file rename (.lua.txt -> .lua). This clearly contrasts with the sibling reanim_disable_root_plugin, though the sibling is not named.
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?
The description never says when to use this versus alternatives or the disable counterpart, nor what precondition (a currently disabled plugin) must hold. Usage is only implicit in the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.