plugin_upgrade

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that the plugin must be disabled first, that existing settings/volumes persist, and that remote re-pulls vs targets a new reference. This adds real behavioral context and aligns with destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a tight workflow paragraph, a compact Args list, and a clear Returns line. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, sequencing, parameter semantics, persistence behavior, and return type. An agent has everything needed to invoke plugin_upgrade correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: name is 'The plugin name to upgrade' and remote includes an example reference and default behavior ('default: same as name'). Both parameters are fully explained with useful semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Upgrade an installed plugin to a newer version.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like plugin_install, plugin_disable, and plugin_enable by focusing on an already-installed plugin.

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 explicit workflow guidance: call plugin_disable before and plugin_enable after, and explains when to omit remote vs use a different reference. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead for a new plugin' exclusion, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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