nexo_personal_plugin_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions persistence and optional script creation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting files, permission requirements, what the scaffold includes). The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and optional feature. It could benefit from a slightly more structured format, but it is concise and avoids redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the concept of a 'plugin scaffold', the role of each parameter, and the details of the companion script. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the companion script option but does not clarify the meaning of 'name', 'description', 'tool_name', 'force', or the specific relationship between parameters. This provides little value beyond the schema's property names.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('persistent personal MCP plugin scaffold') with a specific location. It also notes the optional companion script, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'nexo_personal_script_create' that create only scripts.

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 the tool is for creating plugins, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., loading or removing plugins). No context on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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