plugin_disable

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

The description discloses that disabling affects only new containers, not existing ones, and warns that force=True may disrupt active containers by losing access to plugin-provided resources. It also clarifies the plugin remains installed, which is important for understanding the tool's side effects beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive hints).

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 with a clear overview, explicit warnings, and a concise Args/Returns breakdown. It is front-loaded with the most critical behavioral information, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, side effects, parameter semantics, and return value. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly 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?

The description explains the force parameter's meaning and consequences, which goes beyond the schema's simple boolean default. However, it does not elaborate on the name parameter, but since the name is straightforward and probably a plugin identifier, it is adequately covered by the schema even though schema coverage is 0%.

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 tool disables a plugin so it stops intercepting Docker API calls, and notes the plugin remains installed. It distinguishes from siblings like plugin_remove and plugin_enable by specifying that disabled plugins are still installed and can be re-enabled.

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 explicitly explains when to use force=True and the consequences of doing so, and mentions re-enabling with plugin_enable. This gives the agent clear guidance on choosing this tool over alternatives and handling edge cases.

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