tdarr_update_plugin_include

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool toggles a boolean (enable/disable), which is a basic behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose prerequisites, idempotency, or what happens if the plugin or dbID does not exist.

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 a single brief sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick reading.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks context about what a 'classic plugin stack' is and how this tool relates to other plugin include tools. The agent might need additional information to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (enable/disable) and the resource (plugin in a classic plugin stack). It is specific and distinguishes from generic CRUD tools, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like tdarr_add_plugin_include and tdarr_remove_plugin_include.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this updates an existing entry, nor does it differentiate from add or remove operations. The agent may confuse it with adding or removing plugin includes.

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