create_plugin_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states side effects: generates a net462 project, creates a sample class, signs the assembly by default, and does not register anything in Dataverse. It explains the 'name' constraint (valid C# identifier) and the rationale for 'sign'. Missing are behaviors like what happens if the directory already exists, but the provided details are substantial.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by concise behavioral details and parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler. The line break and parameter-specific formatting improve readability without adding bulk.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, side effects, and key constraints. The tool is relatively simple, and the description explains both the primary action and critical exceptions (e.g., sign=False). It doesn't cover the 'author' parameter, but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, the description is largely complete. Minor omissions like directory conflicts keep it from a 5.

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%, but the description compensates by detailing 'name' and 'sign' with rich meaning: name becomes the project namespace and must be a valid C# identifier; sign defaults to True and generates a .snk key. However, the 'author' parameter is not mentioned anywhere, leaving a gap in parameter documentation for a tool that should cover all its parameters under low schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Create a new C# Dataverse plug-in project', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further differentiates from siblings by specifying 'under plugins/<name>' and noting it only generates code locally, not registering anything. This distinguishes it clearly from registration-related sibling tools like push_plugin_update and create_step.

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 provides contextual guidance on when to use the tool by stating it only creates code locally and does not register anything, implying that for registration one would use other tools. It also gives explicit guidance on the 'sign' parameter, telling users to set False only for unsigned third-party assemblies. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating non-usage scenarios.

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