create_site_plugin

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. While 'Создать' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on usage, no parameter explanations, and no behavioral context. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters (3 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'plugin_type', 'plugin_name', 'webasyst_path', or any other parameters mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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' meaning 'Create') and the resource ('плагин для приложения Site' meaning 'plugin for the Site application'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plugin_structure' or 'create_payment_plugin', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools involving creation operations (create_action, create_plugin_structure, create_payment_plugin, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific site plugin creation tool is appropriate versus other creation tools.

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