plugin_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not waste words on that; instead it adds non-obvious behavior - the delete is persisted to the database and applied later by the scheduler, and the tool cannot confirm the plugin is actually stopped. This deferred/asynchronous consequence is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the lookup helper, then the behavioral caveat. No filler and no repetition.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: how to obtain the ID, what gets rejected, and the fact that success is not immediately verifiable.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'ID of a UI plugin, as returned by plugins_list type=ui'. The description largely restates that constraint, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Uninstall one UI-installed plugin by ID') plus a scope restriction ('other plugins are refused'), which immediately separates it from plugins_upload and plugins_list. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite/alternative: 'Use plugins_list with type=ui to find IDs.' It also states an exclusion ('other plugins are refused'), so the agent knows both when to use it and when it will fail.

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