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

Goes well beyond the destructive/openWorld/idempotent hints: no undo point is recorded, an existing folder causes no change and returns the installed version, part of the activation check may be rolled back in the same call while the install persists, and errors carry file and line. This is exactly the mutation/rollback context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most clauses carry unique information, but it is a single run-on paragraph with tangled phrasing ('the answer, an error, names the error with file and line'; 'plus what the activation check reports'). Splitting prerequisites, returns and rollback into short sentences would make it far easier to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (installed, plugin file, activated, version), the error shape, capability requirements, and the rollback contract. Nothing an agent needs to call this destructive tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the slug must be a WordPress.org directory slug, and activate requires a distinct capability whose absence yields installed=true with activated=false. That clarifies the consequence of each parameter beyond the schema's one-liners.

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 (install a plugin from the WordPress.org directory by slug, optionally activating) and implicitly delineates itself from siblings by naming wp_update_plugin for upgrades. An agent can distinguish this from wp_install_theme, wp_activate_plugin and wp_update_plugin without opening a 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?

Explicitly names prerequisites (install_plugins, and activate_plugins for activate), the environment exclusion (refused when DISALLOW_FILE_MODS is set), and the alternative for an already-installed plugin (wp_update_plugin). It even states the fallback outcome when activate_plugins is missing (installed but activated stays false).

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