Switch a plugin file on

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description adds real context — parameter defaults come from the file's own header, re-running merges rather than duplicating, and a running game needs a restart while an open editor manager will overwrite the file on save. It stops short of stating exactly what this tool overwrites in plugins.js, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core action, and each clause (patch_plugin contrast, header sourcing, idempotent merge, restart, editor race) carries distinct information. Slightly packed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 file-mutating tool with no output schema and partial annotations, the description covers the important operational caveats (restart, editor overwrite, merge semantics). It doesn't describe the return value, which matters somewhat given no output schema exists, but the essential call-correctly information is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: parameters are seeded from the file's `@param`/`@default` header and only override single keys on top of that, and it explains why nothing runs on undeclared values. That goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 states a precise verb and target (put a plugin file into `js/plugins.js`) and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling `patch_plugin`, which 'only reaches entries that are already listed.' An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from neighbors without opening a 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?

It names the alternative (`patch_plugin`) and the condition that selects this tool over it, plus clarifies re-run behavior on an already-listed plugin. That covers when-to-use and the alternative in one pass.

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