disable_plugin

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

Annotations only say idempotent and destructive; the description explains exactly what the destruction covers — capability registrations swept (MCP tools vanish, Studio screen unmounts, report source and automation actions stop resolving), sandbox stopped, status flipped. It also bounds the blast radius: manifest and permissions retained, audit rows and past automation runs untouched, which resolves any worry that destructiveHint means data loss.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence whose parenthetical (its MCP tools vanish, its Studio screen unmounts, ...) carries real information rather than filler. Minor waste only in the internal ticket reference '(US-G02.3)' and the German/English switch mid-description.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the behavioral picture is essentially complete — effects, reversibility, and preserved state are all covered. The remaining gap is practical: nothing about what a successful response contains or what happens when the plugin is already disabled, though idempotentHint true partly covers the latter.

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 0% and the description does not mention workspaceId, pluginId, or idempotencyKey at all, so it adds nothing to the schema here. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory and idempotentHint covers the idempotency key's intent, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (disable a plugin) and immediately delimits it against the sibling it could be confused with: 'ohne sie zu deinstallieren' and 'keeping the manifest and granted permissions so a later enable_plugin needs no re-install'. That contrasts disable_plugin with uninstall_plugin and enable_plugin without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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 use case is clear: temporarily deactivate a plugin while preserving install state, especially when a later enable_plugin is anticipated. Sibling routing is implied by the explicit 'not uninstall' framing rather than stated as an if/then rule, so there is no explicit when-not or step-by-step alternative.

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