node_plugins_update

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description contributes nothing beyond that: it does not say what a plugin update modifies, whether it is reversible, or how the nested pluginConfig is applied. No contradiction with annotations, but no added behavioral value either.

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 words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy. It is front-loaded in the trivial sense that there is only one clause to front-load.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, no annotation detail on the write semantics, and an undocumented nested config object needs a description to carry substantial context. This one carries none.

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% across three parameters, including a required uuid and a free-form nested pluginConfig object with additionalProperties: true. The description mentions none of them, leaving the most opaque parameter completely unexplained in either place.

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?

"Update Node Plugin" merely restates the tool name (node_plugins_update) as a title-cased phrase. It gives the verb and resource but adds no scope, no affected fields, and no differentiation from siblings like node_plugins_create or node_plugins_clone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no reference to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for node_plugins_update, node_plugins_sync, or node_plugins_set_tags for a given change.

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