wp_update_plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a mutating operation fetching from WordPress.org, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting the plugin's existing files, losing local customizations, or requiring filesystem permissions.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. It states the tool's action, resource, and source efficiently in a format an agent can parse immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core call essentials. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of side-effect or prerequisite disclosure leaves the agent without a complete picture of what happens on invocation.

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 100%—the 'plugin' parameter already documents its three accepted formats (file path, slug, or name). The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('update') and resource ('WordPress plugin') with precise scope ('to the latest version from WordPress.org'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (wp_install_plugin, wp_activate_plugin, wp_deactivate_plugin, wp_delete_plugin) without needing to inspect schemas.

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 usage scenario is implied—an installed plugin needs upgrading—but never stated explicitly. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over wp_install_plugin, nor any prerequisites mentioned such as the plugin already being installed and active.

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