Disable a discovered local plugin (verified)

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 does reveal several behaviors: defaults to dry-run, refuses critical first-party services and active bars, and performs state verification. However, it does not explain the consequences of dry-run false, what the verification entails, or any error behaviors. It provides some transparency but leaves significant 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, front-loaded sentence that packs the main action, the default behavior, and key constraints. It's efficient and avoids unnecessary filler. The structure is clean, though not perfectly ideal (e.g., the 'verify' clause could be clearer), earning a 4.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to be thorough. It misses critical information: the meaning of 'reversible', what the verification actually reports, the response format (even if no output schema, a statement about return values would help), and prerequisites for 'discovered' plugins. The description is too sparse for an agent to call this reliably without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'dry-run' explicitly (the dryRun parameter's default) but does not clarify the semantics of the required 'id' parameter beyond the schema's pattern. It implies id refers to a 'discovered' plugin, but doesn't explain how to obtain or identify it. The description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('Disable a reversible local plugin') and its verification aspect ('verify catalog/bar state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enable or clone. However, the phrase 'reversible local plugin' is ambiguous (whether it means the plugin is reversible or the operation is reversible), and the verification is somewhat unspecific, so it doesn't fully achieve the precision of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention plugin_local_enable or other related tools, and there is no 'Use this when...' or 'For enabling, use X instead.' The only contextual clue is the refusal of critical first-party services and active bars, which is a constraint, not usage direction.

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