create_plugin_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It details read-only behavior, return shape { command, warnings? }, validation against actual plugin annotations, warn-by-default policy (never blocks), and args normalization to string-valued shape. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and packing validation, normalization, return shape, and side-effect-free behavior into the second. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero waste.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it builds, how it validates, warning behavior, return value, and that it writes nothing. This is complete for an agent to select and 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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that args are normalized to the editor's string-valued shape and that validation may produce warnings for unknown or disabled plugins, which affects how parameters are interpreted.

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 it 'Build an RPG Maker MZ plugin command (event command code 357)' for insertion via add_event_command, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on creation/building, not listing or inserting, making its role unambiguous.

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 clear context: the tool is used to build a plugin command for later insertion via add_event_command. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list and the phrase 'via add_event_command' imply the workflow clearly enough.

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