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

Goes well beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations: it discloses slug pre-validation that aborts without consuming one of only three backup slots (a quota the agent cannot see anywhere else), mandatory verified safety backup with refusal to update on failure, and post-update read-back of the installed version with explicit honest-failure reporting.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then sequences the behavior (validate → backup → update → read back) in execution order. Six dense sentences with no filler, though the length is on the high side for a four-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what the response will contain (read-back version, or an explicit statement that it could not be read). For a destructive, quota-limited mutation the agent has everything needed: preconditions, failure paths, and reporting guarantees.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the slug is validated against actually installed extensions before any work happens, and item_type is effectively constrained to one element per call.

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 and resource ('Aktualisiert EIN einzelnes WordPress-Plugin oder -Theme') with explicit single-item scope, and names the sibling tools that supply the slug (get_outdated_plugins, get_wordpress_plugins). An agent can distinguish this from start_bulk_wordpress_update or update_wordpress_core from the description alone.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (slug must originate from get_outdated_plugins or get_wordpress_plugins) and an explicit exclusion: 'Nie "alle auf einmal", immer nur ein Element pro Aufruf.' It stops short of naming start_bulk_wordpress_update as the alternative for multi-item updates, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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