install_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the main side effects: downloading/installing a plugin and updating server.cfg. It does not mention whether existing plugin files are overwritten, how server.cfg is modified, or any permission/restart requirements—traits that would be useful for a mutating network/download action.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and side effect are front-loaded, and the accepted input formats are stated compactly in the second sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, this is reasonably complete: it names the action, the side effect on server.cfg, and the accepted URL/repo formats. Because there is no output schema, it could have described return/error behavior, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 parameter descriptions already document the GitHub repo/direct URL format and example names. The tool description adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond restating these formats, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download and install a SAMP plugin (.dll/.so) and update server.cfg.' It also clarifies accepted sources ('GitHub repos' vs 'direct download URLs'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like install_include or search_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?

The description provides clear context: this is for installing binary SAMP plugins and updating server.cfg. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the '.dll/.so' qualifier and the server.cfg side effect convey when it should be selected over install_include or config-editing tools.

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