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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety posture is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: background execution and 'automatic fallbacks', which tell the agent the call is non-blocking and resilient to partial failure. It stops short of stating what a fallback does (e.g., rollback) or what the caller observes on failure.

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 short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, then behavior, then the prerequisite lookup. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, background behavior and how to find updatable plugins. Gaps remain around the approval flow implied by the swiftly_* approval siblings and what the agent should expect on failure, but nothing critical to 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 description coverage is 100%: the slug parameter is fully documented, including the warning to use the slug rather than the full file path, and site_id is described. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond implying no version argument is needed, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('update a WordPress plugin') plus the target state ('to its latest version'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like wp_install_plugin, wp_activate_plugin and wp_update_theme. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Use the Command Center (swiftly_command_center) to see which plugins have updates available' gives a concrete prerequisite workflow and names the companion tool. It supplies clear when-to-use context but no when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions (e.g., plugin already current, incompatible plugin).

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