Install a plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important side effects: the code is written to the plugins folder, recorded for startup loading, loaded immediately, and executes third-party code inside Blockbench. It does not cover overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by persistence and execution behavior, and the security-relevant note is clearly placed at the end.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema install tool, the description gives enough context to understand the main side effects and security implication. It could be more complete about overwrite behavior and prerequisites, but it covers the essential install semantics.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the code/path/url source distinction but adds little beyond the schema for id and version.

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 verb and resource: install a Blockbench plugin. It also distinguishes the supported source forms (source code, local file, URL), which separates it from siblings like bb_uninstall_plugin, bb_reload_plugin, and bb_list_plugins.

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 implies when to use the tool by naming install sources, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over bb_execute_js, bb_reload_plugin, or bb_uninstall_plugin, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not well guided.

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