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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses a hard rate limit (max five installs/day), warns that unreviewed third-party code lands on the site, explains that install+activate is a single atomic operation with a documented intermediate state, states that it reads and reports state afterward, and is explicit about what an unreadable state does and does not mean. Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then constraints and failure behavior in tight, information-dense sentences; every statement carries operational weight (limit, atomicity, recovery path, ambiguous-state disclaimer) with no filler.

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, but the description compensates by describing the state read-back and what the response reports, including the explicit case where state cannot be read. For a destructive mutation with side effects, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the activate parameter: activation is part of the same operation, and its failure leaves the plugin installed. It does not add anything for domain/site_url beyond the schema, but the activation semantics are non-obvious and genuinely useful.

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 (installs a plugin from the official WordPress directory onto a domain) plus the optional activation scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_wordpress_core or set_wordpress_plugin_state.

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 explicit when-to-use context (install, optionally activate) and, critically, an explicit when-NOT-to-use instruction: do not reinstall after an activation-only failure, since that yields 'already installed'. It names the correct follow-up alternative, set_wordpress_plugin_state, so the routing decision needs no inference.

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