push_plugin_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and includes a WARNING that the tool replaces code currently running in the environment. It also explains item_type and file_path requirements. Yet it omits details about failure modes, permissions, or rollback capabilities, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 but information-dense, with a clear opening sentence, parameter breakdown, and a warning. Every line adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description covers the most critical aspects: purpose, main parameters, environment selection, and the destructive warning. Minor omissions (project_path, configuration) do not severely impact completeness, but there is still room to explain the required project_path.

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 0%, and the description compensates well by explaining plugin_id, environment, item_type, and file_path in detail. It even specifies conditional requirements (file_path required for Assembly). However, it leaves project_path and configuration without explicit explanation, though these may be self-evident.

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 'Rebuild and push (upload) a plug-in that is ALREADY REGISTERED in Dataverse.' This clearly specifies the action (rebuild and push), the resource (an already-registered plug-in), and distinguishes from initial registration or build-only tools like build_plugin or create_plugin_project.

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 emphasizes the prerequisite 'ALREADY REGISTERED' and references using list_environments() for the environment parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with sibling tools, such as build_plugin for building without pushing.

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