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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the change affects the live site, it is reversible by activating the previous theme, and writes must be enabled first. It could say more about side effects of a theme switch (menus/widgets), but this is well above the annotation baseline.

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 core action, then the install conditional and the safety note. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields verbatim.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite permission gate, the installation fallback, and reversibility. The main omission is what happens to theme-dependent content after switching, which an agent might want to warn about.

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 schema already documents theme, install, and site_id. The description restates the install=true behavior and gives a slug example, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Activate a WordPress theme'), gives a concrete example slug, and clarifies the execution path (server-side SSH, no local SSH). An agent can immediately distinguish it from wp_list_themes and wp_set_page_template.

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?

Explains the conditional for the install flag ('Set install=true to install it from wordpress.org first if it's not present') and the prerequisite ('Requires writes enabled'). It lacks an explicit pointer to sibling alternatives like wp_list_themes, but the context is clear enough to select correctly.

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