editor_enable_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It only says 'enable' without disclosing side effects, persistence, error behavior, or whether enabling requires a restart or affects the current session. This is insufficient for a mutation-style tool.

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 six-word sentence that is front-loaded and free of superfluous words. Every word contributes to stating the core action, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency leaves gaps in when and how to correctly invoke it, making it incomplete relative to the available context.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the 'plugin' parameter. The description adds only that it is a 'named' plugin, but does not specify the expected format, valid values, or how to obtain the plugin name, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool enables a named editor plugin, using a specific verb 'enable' and a distinct resource. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like editor_disable_plugin and editor_get_plugin_list by focusing on the activation action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_disable_plugin or editor_get_plugin_list. It does not mention how to discover valid plugin names or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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