save_plugin

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden and handles it well. It reveals the destructive overwrite behavior ('Overwrites the whole file'), the prerequisite read step, and the non-persistence trait of Community plugin edits. It stops short of disclosing response format or error conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, destructive behavior plus workflow, and scope restriction. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter write tool with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, safe workflow, and scope exclusions. A note on success indicators or a verify_plugin follow-up would make it fully complete, but nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining why 'text' must be the complete source (because of the whole-file overwrite) and reinforcing that plugin_source is 'Local' by restricting usage to Local plugins. This connects the parameters to the tool's behavior rather than merely restating them.

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 ('Write'), a precise resource ('the source of a local classic plugin'), and even the raw HTTP endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_plugin and create_plugin by narrowing scope to 'local classic' plugins.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'read_plugin first and send back the full modified source,' naming the sibling tool to use beforehand. It also states when not to use it ('Only edit Local plugins — Community plugins are overwritten on the next plugin update'), making the selection criteria fully explicit.

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