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

Annotations declare destructive/not-idempotent/non-readonly, and the description adds information the annotations cannot: the response reports was_active, self-deactivation of the bridge is refused with the reason (it would end the connection or remove tools), and the call only reaches the single site this connection is bound to. That is exactly the context annotations lack.

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 the action and identifier format, and every sentence carries real information. The parenthetical enumerating AlphaBridge's components is slightly heavy, and the closing sentence about Connect forwarding is one clause longer than needed, but there is no true filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: valid input source, the returned was_active field, the self-deactivation guard, and the reverse operation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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; the description still adds value by telling the agent where to source the value (wp_list_plugins' file field) and that any other form is refused. It does not add further edge cases (case sensitivity, already-inactive plugins), so it stops short of a 5.

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 ("Deactivate a plugin") plus the exact identifier format it consumes, with a concrete example. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wp_activate_plugin ("the reverse") and from wp_delete_plugin by implication, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives the precondition for the argument (use the path as wp_list_plugins returns it), names the counterpart tool for the opposite action, and states a hard exclusion: AlphaBridge's own components are refused and must be deactivated in wp-admin. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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