Unregister plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the .js file is not deleted, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error conditions, required permissions, or reversibility of the action.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential action and a critical limitation. However, it omits details about parameter format, error handling, and use cases, leaving some gaps.

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 single parameter 'name' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what the name should be (e.g., with or without extension, path). The meaning is only implied, leaving ambiguity.

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 the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'plugin from js/plugins.js'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_plugin, read_plugin, and list_plugins by specifying the exact file affected and the fact that the .js file is not deleted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use remove_plugin vs write_plugin or configure_plugin, and there is no context about prerequisites or consequences.

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