wordpress_wp_plugin_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the safety-critical default dry-run behavior, what happens in each mode, and the backup requirement, though it omits details about error handling, reversibility, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently packs essential information into three sentences, including the dry-run mechanism and backup warning. Every element serves a distinct purpose, though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage that slightly reduces clarity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations for this potentially destructive operation, the description adequately covers the primary safety mechanism but leaves gaps regarding return value structure, parameter input formats, and error scenarios. It meets minimum requirements for agent usage but requires inference for proper parameter formatting.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate for all three parameters. While it explains the dry_run parameter's boolean behavior (preview vs apply), it completely fails to document the expected format for 'site' (URL vs ID) or 'plugin_name' (slug vs full name), leaving critical input requirements undefined.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Update WordPress plugin(s)' with a clear verb and resource target. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like wordpress_wp_theme_update and wordpress_wp_core_update by specifically mentioning plugins.

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 provides explicit when/when-not guidance by explaining that the default DRY RUN mode only shows available updates, while setting dry_run=false applies changes. The imperative 'Always backup first!' establishes critical safety prerequisites, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the wordpress_wp_plugin_list_detailed sibling for read-only listing.

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