plugin_configure

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining mutating behavior. It does so by stating the plugin must be disabled before reconfiguring and that plugin_enable is needed afterward, which implies a state transition. However, it does not discuss side effects such as whether existing configuration is overwritten or exceptions on invalid keys, so it is solid but not exhaustive.

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, starting with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then parameter explanations, and finally the return value. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds information. Front-loading the purpose and usage makes it efficient, though it could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity—requiring inspection, disable, configure, enable sequence—the description covers all necessary steps, explains both parameters thoroughly, and notes the return type. Even though an output schema exists (bool), the description reinforces it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains 'name' with a concrete example ('vieux/sshfs:latest') and 'options' as key/value pairs matching the plugin's declared env keys, including a sample dict. This gives the agent far more meaning than the bare schema (string and object types).

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 the verb and resource: 'Set runtime configuration options on an installed plugin.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like plugin_inspect (read), plugin_install (install), and plugin_enable/disable (state changes). An agent can immediately grasp what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool: first call plugin_inspect to discover env keys, then disable the plugin if active (via plugin_disable), call this tool, and finally re-enable with plugin_enable. It also clarifies the prerequisite state and the aftermath, leaving no room for incorrect invocation.

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