plugins_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a plugin' and mentions 'confirm: Required,' which hints at a confirmation requirement but does not explain side effects, whether the update is destructive, permission needs, or what happens to the existing plugin. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition. Its brevity is a strength, but it trades away needed explanatory content, especially around the confirm parameter.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and only minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation mechanism, the update source behavior, potential consequences, or when this tool should be chosen over related plugin tools. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details. It lists plugin_id and confirm, but adds little beyond the schema's existing titles. The statement 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the input schema, which lists only plugin_id as required and gives confirm a default of false.

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 plugin from its update_url.' This clearly identifies the action and the source, and is distinguishable from sibling tools like plugins_install_url or plugins_delete by the operation itself. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling by name.

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 implies use for updating a plugin from its update_url, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as plugins_install_url or plugins_activate. Usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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