describe_action

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses data provenance (curated schema vs. plugin-page hints vs. real settings from existing keys) and that secrets are redacted. It could go further on behavior for unknown/unsupported actions, but the data-source and redaction disclosure is substantive.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the colon-separated apposition carrying the fallback logic. Dense but not padded; the nested comparative clause ('a curated schema ... otherwise hints ... plus real settings') is slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is explained, when, and where the returned data comes from, including the redaction guarantee.

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 100% and the schema already documents the single 'action' parameter with a UUID/name example, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description says 'one action' but adds no format, naming, or disambiguation detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Explain') and resource ('one action's settings') and pins the timing ('before placing it'). It is distinguishable from list_actions and get_plugin_settings by scoping to a single action's settings, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'before placing it' specifies the workflow stage at which this tool is called, which is real context an agent can act on. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., when to prefer list_actions or get_plugin_settings) and there are no exclusions or prerequisites for unknown actions.

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