Enable 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 and does well: it discloses the dry-run default (non-destructive behavior unless dryRun=false) and the refusal of bar replacements. It is a state-mutating operation, so disclosing the dry-run default is meaningful. It stops short of describing what happens on conflict with an already-enabled plugin or the exact failure/return behavior, which a 5 would require.

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 with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the placement constraint and then the dry-run default. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 tool with 3 parameters, a nested placement object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics: what it targets, the placement requirement/refusal, and the dry-run default. It does not disclose the success/error response shape or behavior on repeated/conflicting enable attempts, which is the main remaining gap for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 maps to the placement parameter ('Bar widgets require an exact section/index') and to the dryRun flag ('Defaults to dry-run'). The id parameter is the plugin identifier, which is implied well enough by the stated purpose. This covers the meaningful semantics of the parameters without needing to repeat the enum values already in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Enable an already-discovered plugin') and the qualifier 'already-discovered' cleanly separates it from the discovery flow and the plugin_list/plugin_validate siblings. The bar-widget constraint adds precision about what the tool does and does not accept. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 actionable usage context: bar widgets must supply an exact section/index, and bar replacements are refused. This tells an agent when to pass placement and when the call will be rejected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or the condition for choosing this over the sibling plugin tools, but the enable-vs-validate/clone/disable distinction is reasonably clear from context.

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