adobe_installPlugin

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses that files are copied into user CEP folders, UPIA installer, AE Scripts/Presets, Photoshop, Premiere, and app Plug-ins folders, and notes that admin rights may be required for the deepest install. It does not cover overwrite behavior, restart requirements, or idempotency, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 that packs the essential routing rules without filler. The semicolon-separated mapping is dense but every clause contributes install-destination information; it is slightly run-on but appropriately sized for the number of formats covered.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the common install formats and destinations well. However, it leaves gaps around the app parameter's semantics, overwrite/error behavior, and post-install steps (e.g., restarting the target application), which an agent would need to call this reliably across all cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully explains the path parameter's accepted formats and the panel:true behavior for .jsx files, but does not explain the app enum (ae/pr/ps/ai) or how app interacts with ambiguous file types. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 (Install) and enumerates the resource types accepted (extension/plugin/script/preset) with concrete file extensions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like adobe_togglePlugin, adobe_listPlugins, and adobe_pluginFile, which serve different lifecycle stages.

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 extension-to-destination mapping implies which install path will be taken, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as adobe_togglePlugin or adobe_extensions. No prerequisites (e.g., whether the target app should be closed) or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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