NEXO Brain

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. While it mentions the destructive action ('delete the file'), it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects system stability, or what happens if the plugin is in use. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter guidance. There is zero wasted text, and the structure (purpose followed by args) is logical and efficient.

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 that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks important context about safety, alternatives, and system impact that would be expected for a deletion tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'filename' parameter with a clear example ('e.g., 'entities.py''). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't clarify constraints like valid filename formats or case sensitivity.

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 specific action ('Remove a plugin') and the two-step process it performs ('unregister its tools and delete the file'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'nexo_plugin_list' and 'nexo_plugin_load'. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or consequences. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'nexo_plugin_list' (to identify plugins before removal) or 'nexo_plugin_load' (the opposite operation), nor does it warn about irreversible deletion or system impact.

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