plugin_configure

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the prerequisite that the plugin must be disabled, explains the configuration keys map to Settings.Env, and mentions the return type. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and fully discloses the operation's constraints.

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 appropriately sized: a clear purpose sentence, two sentences of usage context, and a structured args/returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity and the minimal schema, the description covers the full workflow, parameter semantics, and return value. It even includes a concrete example, making it complete enough for an agent to use the tool without further documentation.

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?

Despite schema coverage of 0%, the description fully explains both parameters: 'name' with an example, and 'options' as key/value settings matching the plugin's env keys. The example dict in the prose enriches the meaning beyond the plain schema 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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Set runtime configuration options on an installed plugin.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_install, plugin_disable, and plugin_inspect. The inclusion of an example further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use plugin_inspect first to discover keys, disable the plugin before reconfiguring, and enable it afterwards. It names alternatives (plugin_disable, plugin_enable) and gives a precise workflow, which is exactly what is needed.

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