disable_editor_plugin

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

With destructiveHint=false already declared, the description goes further by stating that other plugins and comments are preserved, that a dryRun preview exists, that expectedHash guards the write, and that live activation does not occur. It still omits failure behavior (plugin not found, hash mismatch) and whether a backup or rollback exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its side-effect guarantee. The closing clause about not claiming live activation slightly restates the reopen instruction, but it is a deliberate scope caveat rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers the mutation target, preservation guarantee, preview and hash options, and the activation caveat. For a 4-parameter config-mutation tool this is sufficient to call correctly.

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 only 25% — pluginPath is documented, but projectPath and expectedHash are bare. The description names dryRun and expectedHash but never explains what expectedHash is compared against or what projectPath's format is, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (disable an editor plugin) and the exact file it mutates (project.godot), which cleanly separates it from enable_editor_plugin and get_editor_plugins in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation 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?

It gives post-call guidance (save and reopen an already-open editor to apply) but never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings or when dryRun should be used versus a real mutation. Usage is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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