enable_editor_plugin

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the write is surgical (other plugins and comments preserved) and it explicitly disclaims live activation. It stops short of saying what happens on an expectedHash mismatch or whether a backup is made, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 compact sentences: action and file target first, then options, then the activation caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with an accurate description of file impact and the non-live-activation caveat, an agent has nearly everything; only expectedHash semantics and idempotency (plugin already enabled) are missing.

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 coverage is only 25%, with just pluginPath documented, so the description must carry more weight. It names dryRun and expectedHash but supplies no meaning for either — in particular expectedHash's role as a concurrency/consistency guard is left for the agent to guess — and projectPath is never addressed.

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 ('Enable an editor plugin') plus the exact file it mutates ('project.godot'), which cleanly separates it from siblings such as disable_editor_plugin and get_editor_plugins. An agent knows precisely what this call does 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?

The description gives a useful prerequisite/caveat ('Save and reopen an already-open editor to apply; this does not claim live activation'), which implies the agent needs a separate action to see the effect. However, it never names an alternative tool or states conditions for choosing dryRun versus a real write, so selection guidance is only implied.

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