Update a plugin

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

Annotations already signal a mutating call (readOnlyHint=false), so the description's added value is its disclosure of dry_run behavior, snapshotting before the write, and revert via nuvio_undo. This meaningfully goes beyond the annotations and the schema's dry_run note. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler: the action and target are front-loaded, and the caveats (dry_run, snapshot, undo) are placed at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 core update semantics, identification requirement, and safety net are present, which is good for a mutation tool. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, it omits the meaning of profile_id and does not route between this tool and the specialized plugin siblings, leaving some important decisions to the agent.

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?

With only 13% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming the updatable properties and clarifying that the target is identified by url or table id. However, it does not explain the role of profile_id or any constraints on repo_type, so it only partially fills the schema's documentation gap.

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 ('Change') and resource ('plugin'), enumerates the mutable fields (name, enabled, repo type, sort order), and clarifies identification by url or table id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like nuvio_toggle_plugin or nuvio_reorder_plugins, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given on when to choose this tool over the dedicated sibling operations (toggle, reorder, remove, add) or whether certain changes should use those alternatives. The mention of dry_run and undo provides safety context, but not when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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