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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the re-run-monitors-and-undo workflow, that the call 'counts as runs,' the Relvato 1.77.0+ version behavior where an administrator applies the change (applyInWordPress), and that Relvato alerts the user to undo on monitor breakage.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a long run-on stacking update/deactivate, monitor re-runs, undo behavior, and run-counting into one breath. Information density is high, yet structure suffers and later version-specific detail is hard to parse on a first read.

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 complex, multi-step mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the follow-up call, the user-approval prerequisite, and version-gated behavior. It is close to complete, though it could more explicitly state what the immediate response yields before get_safe_update is called.

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 67%, and the schema already documents runId ('The run that found the plugin') and plugin (slug). The description only loosely contextualizes these ('a plugin a run found') and maps action to 'update it (or deactivate it)' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the enum, so it does not materially improve on the schema.

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The description names a specific verb and resource ('update it (or deactivate it)') scoped to 'a vulnerable or outdated plugin a run found,' and explicitly identifies the source signal (get_run warnings with a plugin). It distinguishes itself from the get_safe_update follow-up and from generic fix tools by describing the exact remediation path.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition ('for a vulnerable or outdated plugin a run found') plus a prerequisite ('Get the user's go-ahead first') and names the required follow-up ('Follow it with get_safe_update'). It does not explicitly contrast against sibling alternatives like apply_fix or request_ai_fix, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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