set_plugin_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious lifecycle fact that the write is staged-only and the settings scope is global rather than per-instance, which is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the verb and scope front-loaded and the staging caveat at the end. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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. Still, for a mutation with a nested object payload and an undocumented remove_keys parameter, the description omits the removal capability entirely and does not state how the staged change becomes live, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 67%: plugin and values are documented (including merge semantics and the secret-preservation behavior), but remove_keys has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the word 'global', so it only partially compensates for the undocumented removal parameter.

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+resource ('Change a plugin's global settings') and scopes it ('plugin-wide'), with a concrete example ('e.g. a server URL'). It does not name the read-side sibling get_plugin_settings, but the write/read distinction is unambiguous from the verb.

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?

'Staged only' implies the change is queued rather than applied immediately, which hints at the stage_plugin / apply_changes / discard_changes workflow in the sibling set. However, it never says how to commit the change or when to prefer this over alternatives, so the agent must infer the full lifecycle.

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