plugin_configure

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description compensates by revealing that the plugin must be disabled before reconfiguring and that the operation returns a boolean after configuration. It also warns that option keys must match the plugin's declared env keys. However, it does not mention what happens if the plugin is active (e.g., error) or whether unlisted settings are overridden, leaving some behavioral nuance undisclosed.

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 tightly written with no filler. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, follows with actionable instructions and an example, then lists args/returns in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place; the structure is easy to scan and parse.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the description covers the full workflow: how to discover valid keys, how to construct options, the disable/configure/enable sequence, and the return value. It even includes an example. Given the tool's modest complexity and the availability of an output schema, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

The input schema provides only names and types with zero description coverage. The description adds rich semantic detail: name is exemplified ('vieux/sshfs:latest'), options are explained as 'Key/value settings to apply, matching the plugin's declared env keys', and a concrete dict example is given. It also tells the agent where to find valid keys (Settings.Env via plugin_inspect), fully compensating for the sparse 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set runtime configuration options on an installed plugin.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_inspect (viewing config) and plugin_disable/enable (lifecycle operations). The phrase 'runtime configuration options' conveys the exact scope of the tool.

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: 'Use plugin_inspect first to see which keys the plugin exposes under Settings.Env' and 'The plugin must be disabled before reconfiguring — call plugin_disable first if it is currently active, then plugin_enable afterwards.' This tells the agent both the prerequisite workflow and how to alternate with related tools, leaving no ambiguity about when/how to invoke.

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