rojo_install_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the old plugin is backed up to %LOCALAPPDATA%\Roblox\PluginBackups, that Rojo settings (Auto Reconnect, Confirmation Behavior 'Unlisted PlaceId') are mutated, and that changes take effect only on next Studio open. It omits whether the install itself fails or behaves differently when Studio is running, and never mentions the configure_settings opt-out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause (backup path, settings mutation, Studio timing, servePlaceIds prerequisite) adds actionable information. It is dense but not padded; a small structural loosening comes from folding the settings behavior into the same run-on sentence as the install.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers side effects, prerequisites, and timing. The remaining gap is the interaction between Studio being open/closed and failure modes for the install itself.

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 single parameter configure_settings has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. The settings behavior it controls is described, but the description presents it as unconditional ('it also turns on...') rather than tying it to the parameter or explaining how to skip it, leaving the opt-out semantics to inference.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Install the plugin rojo_build_plugin ... as Studio's Rojo plugin') and implicitly separates itself from the build step it depends on. An agent can tell this is the install/deploy step rather than the build or start step without opening the schema.

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?

Gives strong operational context: settings are only configured 'with Studio closed', Studio picks the plugin up on next open, and auto-connect requires 'servePlaceIds' in the project. It does not explicitly state the precondition to run rojo_build_plugin first or what to do if Studio is currently open, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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