plugin_remove

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: permanent removal, the requirement to disable before removal unless force=True, and that plugin names come from plugin_list. This fully discloses the operational scope and consequences.

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 and well-structured, using clear sections for behavior, args, and returns. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 0% schema parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, while also referencing plugin_list and plugin_disable for context. It is fully complete for an agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: name (plugin name with example) and force (remove even if enabled, default False). It also documents the return value (bool), providing complete parameter meaning.

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 uninstalls an engine plugin from the daemon, using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from plugin_disable by noting permanent removal, which fully differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'to deactivate but keep a plugin installed use plugin_disable instead.' It also covers the prerequisite that an enabled plugin must be disabled first unless force=True, providing clear usage context.

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