plugin_upgrade

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

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the plugin must be disabled first, and existing settings/volumes persist across the upgrade. This goes beyond the annotation basics, though it could also mention failure modes or permission requirements to reach a full 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage paragraph covering prerequisites and persistence, then clear args and returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema data.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (prerequisite disable/enable, remote reference semantics, persistence guarantee), the description covers all needed aspects: workflow, parameter behavior, return type, and persistence. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and the return schema is simple (bool) requiring no extra explanation.

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?

Although the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: `name` as the plugin to upgrade and `remote` with a concrete example ('vieux/sshfs:next') and default behavior. It also clarifies the return value, making the parameter and output semantics complete.

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 opens with 'Upgrade an installed plugin to a newer version,' which clearly states a specific action (upgrade), target (installed plugin), and outcome (newer version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_install, plugin_disable, and plugin_enable, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly instructs to call plugin_disable before, and plugin_enable after, the upgrade. It also explains when to use the `remote` parameter versus omitting it (to re-pull the same reference). This is clear, actionable usage guidance with no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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