plugin_disable

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals important behavioral nuances: the plugin remains installed, existing containers are unaffected unless force=True, and force can cause container disruption. This is valuable context not inferable from annotations alone.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with a clear opening sentence, a short behavioral paragraph, and a structured args/returns list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its purpose, effects on containers, force semantics, return value, and the re-enable workflow. With an output schema present and only two parameters, this is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: name (plugin name) and force (disable despite active containers). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive metadata.

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 states a specific action ('Disable a plugin') and its effect ('stops intercepting Docker API calls'), while clarifying the plugin remains installed, which distinguishes it from removal tools. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like plugin_remove and plugin_enable.

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 guidance on when to use force=True and explains the impact on new vs. existing containers. It also points to plugin_enable as the reverse operation, giving an explicit alternative, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with plugin_remove.

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