disable_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it lists all side effects (capability registrations removed, sandbox stopped, status flipped, history preserved) and explains what is kept. This is thorough and transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main action and then details effects. It's not overly verbose but could be more structured; every clause adds value.

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?

The description explains the tool's effects thoroughly but omits any mention of return value or error conditions, and doesn't clarify the idempotencyKey parameter. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, this is a notable 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of pluginId, workspaceId, or idempotencyKey. While the first two are self-explanatory, idempotencyKey's purpose is not addressed, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool deactivates a plugin without uninstalling it, explicitly distinguishing it from uninstall_plugin and noting that later enable_plugin needs no re-install. It enumerates specific effects (MCP tools vanish, screen unmounts, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating from siblings.

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 implies use when a temporary deactivation is needed, keeping manifest and permissions for later enable. It contrasts with uninstallation but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the context is clear.

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