generate_plugin

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only what is generated. It says nothing about where files are written to disk, whether it overwrites existing files, whether the codebase must be loaded first, or what the agent should do afterwards (e.g. compile_plugin).

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 with zero redundancy. It states the action and the artifact immediately with no filler.

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 an 8-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not convey side effects, filesystem behavior, output location, or how it relates to the surrounding mod-build pipeline, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as which optional flags alter the generated output structure.

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 (Generate) and resource (BepInEx 5 plugin template with Harmony patching), so the agent knows exactly what artifact it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like scaffold_mod or gorebox_generate_mod, which fill a similar template-generation role.

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 offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus generate_harmony_patch, scaffold_mod, compile_plugin, or the jar/gorebox generation tools. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions stated.

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