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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/openWorld): warns that unchecked third-party code lands on the site, discloses the 5/day rate limit, explains that install+activate is a single atomic-looking operation, that a failed activation still leaves the plugin INSTALLED, and that the tool re-reads state afterwards — including the caveat that an unreadable state is not a statement about presence.

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?

Opens with the core action and scope, then layers the warnings. It is a dense block of German prose rather than scannable structure, but almost every sentence carries non-redundant behavioral information, so little is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the tool reports back (post-install state readback, including the intermediate installed-but-inactive state and the unreadable-state case). For a destructive mutation tool this is unusually complete.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning to activate (install and activate are one operation, with the partial-failure consequence) rather than merely restating it. Domain and plugin semantics come entirely from the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (install), resource (WordPress plugin) and source (offizielles WordPress-Verzeichnis auf einer Domain), plus the optional activation variant. It also implicitly separates itself from set_wordpress_plugin_state, which is named later as the tool for the activation-only path.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: after a partial failure, do NOT reinstall (that yields 'already installed') but repeat activation with set_wordpress_plugin_state — naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects it. The rate limit (max five installations per day) further constrains usage.

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