Remove a plugin

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds valuable context: the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted with nuvio_undo. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the safety net. It does not contradict the annotations. It could mention that confirm is required for the destructive change, but the schema already covers that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the undo/revert information is placed second, which is the most important behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive tool with annotations and a schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, the profile scope, and the undo mechanism. It does not explain what the 'url' parameter refers to or what a preview looks like when confirm is false, but the schema's 'confirm' description covers the preview behavior. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a mutation tool. Minor gap: no explicit statement that the plugin must be installed or what happens if it isn't.

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 only 33% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description does not explain the 'url' parameter or 'profile_id' beyond what the schema provides. The 'url' parameter is required but its meaning (likely the plugin URL or identifier) is not clarified. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does provide some structure and types.

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 specific verb ('Uninstall') and resource ('a plugin from a profile'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nuvio_add_plugin, nuvio_toggle_plugin, and nuvio_reorder_plugins. The title 'Remove a plugin' is reinforced with more precise language, and the profile context is explicit.

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 removing plugins from profiles, and the sibling list shows related plugin tools (add, toggle, reorder) that an agent could confuse it with. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a profile_id or that the plugin must already be installed. The undo hint provides some usage context but not a full when/when-not.

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