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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risky-mutation profile is known. The description adds only the dry_run preview affordance; it says nothing about reversibility, dependency impact, or permission requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisite, then the safety preview. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential call path and a preview option. Missing only edge behavior (already-inactive plugin, dependency warnings), which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 all three parameters (plugin, dry_run, site_id) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces dry_run and the slug lookup but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Deactivate') and resource ('WordPress plugin'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling wp_activate_plugin by name. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling or clarify scope (e.g. single site vs network-wide), so it stops 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?

Gives real workflow guidance: 'Use wp_list_plugins first to find the plugin slug' and 'Use dry_run=true to preview.' That covers ordering and a safe-preview path. It lacks an explicit when-not or prerequisite statement (e.g. what happens if the plugin is already inactive), so not a 5.

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