Update WordPress plugins

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

The annotation already signals a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) yet non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) operation. The description adds an important behavioral trait not present in the annotations: this operation is asynchronous and a successful response only means the job is queued. This is a valuable disclosure that prevents agents from misinterpreting the response as completion of the update.

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 concise and well-structured: an opening action statement, a practical parameter note, and an essential asynchronous caveat. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The definition covers the main operational aspects: what it does, how to identify the software, and the asynchronous nature. However, the 'username' parameter is left ambiguous ('username parameter' in schema, no explanation in description), and with no output schema the agent is not told what a successful response contains beyond the queued-job indicator. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of 'software' by explaining it is the WordPress installation identifier and how to obtain it. It adds little beyond the schema, especially for 'username' and 'plugins', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Update one or more installed plugins to their latest version on a WordPress installation.' This specifies a verb, resource, and scope, making it easy to distinguish from theme or core updates. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related sibling tools like install, activate, or uninstall plugins, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 practical context by explaining how to obtain the required WordPress installation identifier via GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations. It also implies this tool is for updating existing plugins, not installing new ones. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but the provided prerequisite and object scope offer clear usage context.

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