install_opencode_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing the file writes it performs: plugin into <target>/plugins and, conditionally, read.ts into <target>/tools. However, it omits the behaviors most relevant to a mutation tool — overwrite behavior when files already exist, what 'force' actually changes, and where <target> resolves when target_dir is null.

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?

Front-loads the action in one sentence, then documents the two copy destinations in a compact follow-up. Nothing is padded, though the line-broken prose is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted list of effects would be.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core effect but leaves important gaps: default target resolution, force/overwrite semantics, and what the agent gets back after installation. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to predict its result.

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 parameter meaning, and it only partially does. It implies plugin_format (.mjs or .ts), include_read_tool ('unless disabled'), and target_dir ('<target>'), but leaves 'force' entirely unexplained and gives no default or format constraints for the others.

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 and resource — installs a bundled gif-as-mp4 OpenCode plugin in .mjs or .ts form — and names the concrete side effects (copies into <target>/plugins and <target>/tools/read.ts). No sibling tool installs plugins, so it is distinguishable from the rest of the listed set, though the domain-specific phrasing assumes familiarity with 'OpenCode'.

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 explains what gets copied but never says when an agent should reach for this tool, what prerequisites exist (must a target project already exist?), or what the alternative is if the user has a non-OpenCode setup. The rationale about GIFs being labeled video/mp4 is motivation, not usage guidance.

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