bypass_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is reversible ('re-enable'), but says nothing about whether bypass takes effect on live audio, whether it persists across sessions, or whether the target plugin must exist/be loaded.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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 no explaining, but with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description leaves too much unstated: which pipeline is targeted, how instances are addressed, and what state change to expect. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description's depth.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters. 'Single plugin' and 're-enable' faintly gesture at the plugin and bypassed arguments, but pipeline (with its enum), instance (default 0, implying multiple instances), and the required/optional split are entirely undocumented.

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: 'Bypass (disable) or re-enable a single plugin.' The parenthetical resolves the jargon (bypass = disable) and 'single plugin' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling set_global_bypass, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'or re-enable' implies the tool is a bidirectional toggle keyed on the bypassed flag, and 'a single plugin' implies per-plugin scope. However, it never states when to prefer this over set_global_bypass or set_plugin_property, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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