plugins_load

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that, but it adds value by disclosing temporary write enablement, non-save behavior, and the need for post-load inspection. These details go beyond annotation signals, though a couple of specifics like permission requirements or revert behavior could be more explicit.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core action and outcome. Each sentence adds value: prerequisites, authorization context, side effects, and platform limitations. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 an output schema and detailed input schema, the description covers all essential context: when to use (after listing), authorization requirements, side effects (temporary write enablement), limitation (no Windows), and post-usage inspection. An agent has sufficient guidance to invoke it correctly and safely.

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% with a detailed plugin request schema that defines kind, name, track_index, allow_master, timeout_seconds, and session_fingerprint. The description mentions 'name, kind and mixer destination' but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the description adds minimal extra meaning, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 (load a plugin), the resource (macOS Add-menu plugin), and the expected outcome (identify new channel/effect slot). It distinguishes itself from the sibling plugins_list_available by explicitly instructing to use that first, making the purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: always call plugins_list_available first, only load when task request authorizes, and inspect unknown outcomes before further loads. It also notes platform limitations (no Windows insertion) and side effects (temporarily enables bridge writes), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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