eslint_add_plugins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies a mutation of project config files, but the description does not state what gets modified, whether an existing config is overwritten or merged, whether network/registry access is required, or whether changes are reversible. The undocumented api_key parameter hints at external behavior that is never explained.

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 six words with the key information front-loaded and zero filler, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it fails to communicate the operational semantics the tool needs, crossing from conciseness into under-specification.

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 annotations, no output schema, one unexplained parameter, and an ambiguous 'framework' scope, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, side effects, return behavior, or even which project structure the tool targets.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%—directory is documented as 'Project directory' but api_key has no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the purpose of api_key entirely mysterious, which is particularly confusing for an operation that ostensibly just adds plugins to a local project.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('ESLint plugins'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'for framework' is ambiguous—it doesn't name the framework, the plugins, or whether this augments an existing ESLint config. It is only weakly differentiated from siblings like eslint_generate_config and eslint_fix_violations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings eslint_generate_config and eslint_fix_violations are natural competitors, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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