create_shipping_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to create a shipping plugin but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, if it modifies existing files, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every element (action, resource, path) contributing essential information.

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 complexity of creating a plugin (a mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a development context.

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 three parameters (plugin_name, plugin_title, webasyst_path) with descriptions in Russian. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Создать' - create) and resource ('плагин доставки' - shipping plugin) with a specific directory path ('wa-plugins/shipping/'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like create_payment_plugin or create_shop_plugin by specifying the shipping plugin type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_plugin_structure or create_generic_app. The description implies usage for creating shipping plugins but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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