Update Hostinger WordPress plugin

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous and that a successful response only means the update job has been queued. This manages agent expectations about completion. It does not cover auth or other side effects, but the annotations already indicate this is not a read-only operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action is stated immediately, followed by a practical parameter source note and a critical async caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation requirements and the async nature of the operation. It leaves some minor gaps such as how to track the update job or what the username parameter means, but it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the software identifier is placed in the path and can be obtained from a specific GET endpoint, citing the `id` field. The username parameter remains vague, but the schema at least labels it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Hostinger plugin to its latest version on a WordPress installation.' It clearly distinguishes this from generic plugin operations by restricting to Hostinger plugins, reinforced by the slug enum. The difference from sibling tools like hosting_updateWordPressPluginsV1 is apparent from the wording.

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 gives clear context: this is for updating a Hostinger plugin on a WordPress installation, and it explains how to obtain the required software identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the Hostinger-specific scope makes the intended usage clear.

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