Set company-scoped plugin config

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

The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and authorization class, which are not in annotations. However, annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description does not elaborate on safety, idempotency, or potential side effects. The 'destructiveHint: false' is not explained further.

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 very short (two lines), which is concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail. While it is structured with the operation path, it lacks meaningful content to guide usage.

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 tool has two complex parameters (nested objects), no output schema explanation, and a high number of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to use the configJson parameter. The agent cannot effectively invoke this tool without additional information.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe companyId (which company?) or configJson (what structure? keys? values?). The configJson is an object with additionalProperties, but no guidance on valid fields. This leaves the AI agent with no clue on how to construct the request body.

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 title 'Set company-scoped plugin config' clearly indicates the verb (set) and resource (company-scoped plugin config). The description repeats this and provides the operation path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pc_get_plugins_by_plugin_id_config (GET) and pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_config_test (test).

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 mentions the operation path and authorization class ('board'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it. No context for proper invocation is given.

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