cw_plugin_insert_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that discovery paths work while click, double-click, and drag insertion all fail, leaving the FX bin empty. It does not explicitly state whether the tool itself is read-only or describe the exact response format, but the core limitation is unusually transparent.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the overall finding, then gives the supporting discovery/insertion breakdown. Every clause contributes to the point, and nothing 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 no-parameter informational recipe, the description is sufficiently complete: it tells an agent what the tool documents and the key limitation to avoid overpromising. It does not spell out the return format or the exact structure of the recipe content, but no output schema exists and the core context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema and the description are consistent, and there are no parameter semantics that need explaining.

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 identifies the resource as plugin insertion capability and states the key distinction: discovery works but insertion does not. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'describes', and it does not name a sibling tool, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'Read this before promising a plugin can be attached' gives a clear trigger for when to use the tool. It implies the tool should be consulted ahead of any claim about plugin attachment, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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