aism_plugin_update

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that ZIP replacement preserves activation, the required capabilities (plugins:write plus update/upload), the matching constraints (same plugin folder/main file, newer version, companion 1.2.0+), and the self-update/multisite limits. This is exactly the mutation-risk context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the file_path branch, then constraints. It is dense but every clause carries a constraint the agent would otherwise have to discover; the trade-off is a somewhat crammed run-on sentence of stacked caveats.

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 destructive three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, capabilities, preconditions, and unsupported cases. It stops short of describing what a successful response contains or how version-mismatch failures surface, which would fully close the loop.

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, but the description adds real semantics: file_path is optional and selects the ZIP path, and the ZIP must contain the same plugin folder/main file at a newer version. It does not elaborate on the 'site' or 'plugin' parameters beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an installed plugin') and immediately enumerates the two update modes: WordPress-advertised update vs. local ZIP replacement. This clearly separates it from aism_plugin_install, aism_plugin_upload, and aism_plugin_action without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Omit file_path to use the WordPress-advertised update, or supply a local ZIP...'. It also names hard exclusions — AI Site Manager cannot update itself, and multisite mutations are unavailable — so the agent knows when not to call it.

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