paperclip_disable_plugin

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds extra context: disabling is reversible, URL-encoding is automatic, and error handling covers 404, 401, and 403. The board-only requirement is also disclosed. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise, with each sentence providing essential information. No fluff.

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 the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, error handling, and reversibility. It could mention the shape of the returned object, but that is likely standard. Overall, sufficient for the agent to use correctly.

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 only parameter 'pluginKey' has 100% schema description coverage with an example. The tool description adds that it is 'URL-encoded automatically', which is not in the schema. This extra detail enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Disable an active plugin by its key without uninstalling it'), includes a specific verb ('disable'), and distinguishes from the sibling uninstall flow by noting it's reversible. The title in annotations also confirms 'Disable 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 description explicitly provides usage context: 'Board-only', 'Use when: temporarily deactivating a plugin...', and 'Don't use when: you want to permanently remove the plugin — use the uninstall flow instead'. This clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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