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

Beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses that active plugins are deactivated first, that the uninstall routine may delete settings and data, that no undo point is recorded, the delete_plugins capability requirement, the DISALLOW_FILE_MODS refusal, and the self-protection refusal for AlphaBridge. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the effect and identifier, then the permanence warning, then prerequisites and refusals — a sensible order. The AlphaBridge self-exclusion sentence is long and somewhat verbose, though it carries real safety value.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects, permissions, refusals, alternatives, and names the return fields (deleted, plugin). Nothing needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter's format and refusal of folder-name-only or unknown files are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same example and constraint rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (installed plugin), plus the identifier format taken from wp_list_plugins. It explicitly contrasts with wp_deactivate_plugin, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (permanent removal), when-not (switch off without removing → wp_deactivate_plugin), and hard refusal conditions (DISALLOW_FILE_MODS, AlphaBridge's own plugin, handled in wp-admin instead). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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