plugin_prev_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the effect: it moves to the previous preset. It does not disclose whether navigation wraps around, what happens when there is no previous preset, whether the operation is reversible, or that it mutates the currently targeted plugin. The agent cannot predict side effects or failure behavior.

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 sentence is free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise: a single clause for a three-parameter tool that already lacks parameter documentation. There is no structure to surface the important required parameter or the location context. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

At 0% schema coverage, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only documentation; it does not explain what 'previous preset' means relative to the index, slot, and location parameters, nor what the tool expects. The tool cannot be invoked correctly from the provided information. This is a severe completeness 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?

The input schema has three parameters (slot, index, location) with zero schema descriptions, and the description mentions none of them. The required 'index' could be a preset index, a slot index, or something else; 'slot' and 'location' are similarly unexplained. Since coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but adds no parameter meaning.

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 names the action ('Go back') and resource ('previous preset'), so an agent can tell it is a navigation action rather than a creation or query. However, it never says 'plugin', so the target domain is left to the tool name, and it does not contrast with sibling preset tools such as plugin_next_preset or plugin_set_preset beyond the word 'previous'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool instead of plugin_next_preset, plugin_set_preset, or plugin_preset_count. The description also omits prerequisites, such as needing a plugin selected, and does not frame this as one direction in a navigation pair. This is essentially a no-guidance description.

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