Deactivate a plugin

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already tell the agent this is a mutating but non-destructive action. The description adds useful context: features cease immediately, settings/data are 'normally' retained, and it acknowledges possible exceptions with the word 'normally'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 states the action, the target, and the key behavioral outcome with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the caveat 'normally retained' is valuable precision.

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?

With fully documented parameters and a clear statement of immediate and long-term effects, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions such as reversibility or permission requirements are acceptable given the annotations and simple two-parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, thoroughly documenting the plugin identifier with an example and the site_id behavior including the default-site logic. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Deactivate' with the resource 'active plugin', which clearly states the operation. It also names the immediate effect (features stop working) and the non-destructive consequence (settings/data retained), distinguishing it from delete_plugin and activate_plugin.

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 phrase 'active plugin' implies the precondition that the plugin must be active, and the retained-data note hints at a non-destructive alternative to deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide clear when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage largely to inference.

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