Install bridge and configure clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important safe-default behavior (printing rather than writing unless clients:["write"] is passed), which is genuinely valuable. It omits whether the plugin install overwrites an existing file, what permissions or paths are involved, and what happens on failure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the critical write-mode caveat. No filler.

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 two-parameter setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral quirk (print vs write) but leaves install_plugin semantics and side effects of the install step unexplained.

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 50%: clients has a schema description, install_plugin does not. The description adds real meaning for clients by explaining the special ["write"] sentinel value, but says nothing about install_plugin's effect or the default-true behavior.

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+resource pair: install/refresh the Blockbench plugin file and print MCP client config for named clients. It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named bb_install_plugin.

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 line 'Pass clients:["write"] to actually write the config files' implies the default is a print-only/dry-run, which is useful usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus bb_install_plugin or bb_bridge_status, and no prerequisites are stated.

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