project_enable_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool modifies the .uproject and checks restart requirements, but does not mention additional side effects, failure modes, or permissions. This is a moderate level of transparency, better than a bare 'Enable plugins' but lacking deeper context.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Enable one or more plugins') and includes the important outcome (restart reporting). Every phrase earns its place; no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential function and the key behavioral outcome. It lacks thorough error-handling or prerequisite info, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'plugins' parameter, including its type (string or array of strings) and description. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Enable') and resource ('plugins in the current .uproject'), and further specifies an outcome (reporting whether an editor restart is required). This distinguishes it from all other sibling tools, which focus on different project assets or operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites/conditions. It only states the action and result, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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