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

Annotations cover destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it counts as runs, requires user approval, behaves differently on Relvato plugin 1.77.0+ (applyInWordPress link answered by an administrator), performs automatic monitor re-runs and verification, and can auto-alert the user to undo. That is real behavioral disclosure, not restatement.

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?

Highly information-dense with each clause carrying operational meaning, but the sentences are long and run-on, and the version-specific Relvato 1.77.0+ caveat is buried rather than front-loaded. No filler, though the density slightly hurts scannability.

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 destructive, non-idempotent run-scoped tool with no output schema, the description covers approval, mechanism, verification, and undo paths, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of describing what start_safe_update itself returns before the get_safe_update follow-up.

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 schema already documents runId, plugin (slug), and the update/deactivate enum. The description only loosely mirrors that the plugin comes from a run finding and never adds format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource chain: update or deactivate a vulnerable/outdated plugin found by a run, via the Relvato plugin, with re-run and undo semantics. It also names the sibling get_safe_update as the required follow-up, so an agent can distinguish it from get_run or apply_fix.

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?

Explicit trigger ('for a vulnerable or outdated plugin a run found'), explicit precondition ('Get the user's go-ahead first'), and explicit next step ('Follow it with get_safe_update'). The alternative of deactivation is stated inline, and undo is named as the fallback when a monitor breaks.

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