manage_library_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the three actions and the scope (classic plugin stack only), plus add prerequisites. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the operation fails, which would be valuable for a mutating tool.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by high-value details: requirements, ID source, and the flow-library exclusion. No filler or 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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action modes, prerequisites, ID sourcing, and a key boundary condition. The schema handles parameter-level details. It does not mention response or error behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little by noting that source and position are required for 'add' and that plugin IDs come from search_plugins, but the schema already documents these parametric relationships. It does not significantly augment the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Add, remove or enable/disable a classic plugin in a library's plugin stack.' It also distinguishes the tool from flow-plugin management by noting that flow-based libraries are not affected, making its scope clear even among many similar plugin 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 gives clear context: adding requires a source and stack position, plugin IDs should come from search_plugins, and flow-based libraries are explicitly out of scope. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for flow-based libraries, but the usage boundary and prerequisites are clearly implied.

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