ateam_create_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool scaffolds plugins and auto-discovers at next deploy, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds some behavioral context but could be more comprehensive.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It avoids fluff, though the reference to 'Phase 5 of the strip' may be unclear to new users.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, parameter usage, and post-action behavior (auto-discovery). It is adequate for a scaffolding tool, though return values are not mentioned.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the kind enum values, giving an example for connector_id, and noting plugin_name becomes the directory name. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool scaffolds a UI plugin inside an existing connector, specifying types (iframe, rn, adaptive) and the benefit of eliminating boilerplate. It distinguishes from siblings like ateam_create_connector by focusing on plugin creation.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use each kind value (iframe for web, rn for mobile, adaptive for both) and implies the prerequisite of an existing connector. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools.

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