plugin_remove

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

While annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: removal is permanent, plugin_disable is the non-destructive alternative, and force=True changes the prerequisite behavior. This goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line purpose, a key usage distinction, a prerequisite note, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes actionable information 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 destructive two-parameter tool with many plugin siblings, this description covers the operation, the alternative, the precondition, the parameter semantics, the source of valid names, and the return type. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter documentation. It does: name is explained with a concrete example ('vieux/sshfs:latest'), and force is given a clear behavioral meaning ('Remove even if the plugin is enabled'). The schema only provides types/defaults, so this is genuinely additive.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Uninstall an engine plugin from the daemon.' It also immediately differentiates itself from plugin_disable by labeling the operation 'Permanent removal,' so an agent can distinguish this from the many plugin-related 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?

The description explicitly names the alternative tool for a different use case: 'to deactivate but keep a plugin installed use plugin_disable instead.' It also gives the prerequisite that an enabled plugin must be disabled first unless force=True, and tells the agent where valid names come from (plugin_list).

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