plugin_install

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the daemon handles permission grants non-interactively, the plugin may not be enabled after install, and the returned document includes state fields. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage and helps the agent anticipate installation behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: main action, parameter explanation, workflow guidance, and return type. It is structured with clear Args and Returns sections, though slightly lengthy; however, the length is justified by the workflow complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly states the return document and its keys. It also covers prerequisites (plugin_privileges), follow-up actions (plugin_inspect, plugin_enable, plugin_configure), and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains 'remote' as a Docker Hub reference in author/name:tag form with an example, and 'local_name' as an alias defaulting to remote. Both parameters are meaningfully documented despite the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Install a plugin from Docker Hub') and distinguishes itself from siblings like plugin_create, plugin_inspect, and plugin_privileges by specifying the source (Docker Hub) and the install action. The remote format is illustrated with an example, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: call plugin_privileges first to inspect permissions, then plugin_inspect to confirm state, then plugin_enable to activate, optionally plugin_configure for settings, and mentions plugin_list and plugin_remove as alternatives. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do before and after.

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