manage_plugins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verbs reveal that enable/disable mutate plugin state, but the description does not disclose persistence of changes, side effects on the running editor or project settings, reload requirements, or error behavior for nonexistent plugins. This is comparable to the update_drive calibration case.

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 four words, fully front-loaded with the action verbs, and every word earns its place. It is efficient, though the brevity is at the edge of under-specification for a state-mutating tool with three parameters.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what enabling/disabling does to the project, what the list operation returns, or how pluginName applies per action. An agent must infer the operational contract from a single phrase.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's verbs map directly onto the action values ('list, enable, disable'), reinforcing that relationship, but it adds no detail on pluginName format or the conditional nature of that parameter (needed for enable/disable but not list). Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource ('editor plugins') with three concrete operations (list, enable, disable), which clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling manage_* tools targeting other resources (autoloads, input maps, export presets). It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling manage_* tools, no prerequisites are stated (e.g., whether the project must be open in the editor), and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Usage context is only weakly implied by the resource name.

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