reload_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the destructive sequence (unload and module purge), which implies in-memory state loss. It says nothing about permissions, what happens to registered widgets/actions tied to the plugin, or failure behavior for an unknown name.

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?

One sentence, action front-loaded, with the exclusion as a compact parenthetical. No filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the what and the when, but leaves the only parameter's expected value and the post-reload state of dependent UI elements unexplained. Adequate, not complete.

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?

Only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The phrase "reload a plugin" and the qgis_dev_probe exclusion imply that `name` identifies the plugin, but the description never states the expected format or whether it is a short name vs module path.

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?

Precise verb chain (unload, purge modules, reload) applied to a specific resource (a plugin), plus the rationale that code edits take effect. It's clearly not one of the read-only siblings like list_plugins, though it doesn't name a direct alternative.

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?

States the trigger condition ("so code edits take effect") and an explicit exclusion ("not for qgis_dev_probe itself"), which is genuine when/when-not guidance. No named alternative tool is given, but the exclusion prevents a specific miscall.

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