Uninstall a plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether uninstalling is reversible, what happens to the plugin's in-memory state, whether delete_file permanently removes files, or what happens if the id is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the optional behavior trailing. No wasted words, though the brevity is close to under-specification.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It never covers side effects, reversibility, or error conditions that an agent needs before invoking an uninstall operation.

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 compensate, and it does partially: it explains that id identifies the plugin and that delete_file controls optional file removal. However, it omits the default (false), the id format, and the consequence of setting delete_file to true.

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 (uninstall) and resource (Blockbench plugin) with a scoping qualifier (by id), which cleanly separates it from bb_install_plugin, bb_reload_plugin, and bb_list_plugins. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. bb_reload_plugin for refreshing versus removing), and no stated prerequisites such as whether the plugin must be inactive first. The agent must infer all of this.

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