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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful dry_run preview route, but says nothing about the concrete consequence of activating (site front-end impact, possible fatal errors, effect on an already-active plugin), so it adds only modest context beyond 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the safe-preview hint. Nothing repeats itself or could be cut without losing 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?

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage, a fully described schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the action, the discovery prerequisite, and a dry-run escape hatch. The remaining gap is behavioral detail about side effects on the live site, which an agent would need before acting.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's only parameter reference ('dry_run=true to preview') restates the schema's own wording for dry_run and adds no format, default, or constraint information for plugin or site_id.

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 ('Activate an installed WordPress plugin'), and the qualifier 'installed' implicitly separates it from wp_install_plugin. However, it never names the natural sibling pair (wp_deactivate_plugin) or restates the distinction, so sibling differentiation is by inference from the name rather than from the text.

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 a concrete prerequisite workflow ('Use wp_list_plugins first to find the plugin slug') and a safe alternative path ('Use dry_run=true to preview'). It does not state when *not* to use the tool, e.g. that it should not be used on an already-active plugin, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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