update_field_plugin

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only indicates mutation via 'Updates' and lists parameters, but does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, or whether changes are reversible.

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 front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is clear but could be more structured with bullet points. No wasted sentences.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavior upon success (e.g., immediate effect).

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%, and the description largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. It adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'must still be unique' is already in schema), so baseline 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 it updates an existing field plugin, with the verb 'Updates' and resource 'field plugin'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_field_plugin and delete_field_plugin, but does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update vs recreate a field plugin. The description lacks context about prerequisites or limitations.

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