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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: server-side slug verification via wp-cli, that wp-admin/FTP-installed plugins are still switchable, and the deliberate fallback that avoids falsely reporting 'not installed' — including what the failure response means.

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 the core action and the primary use case in the first two sentences. The wp-cli/fallback detail in the last two sentences is slightly dense but relevant to correct invocation, 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining how failures are reported and explicitly warning that a failed attempt is not proof of a missing plugin. Combined with destructive annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though auth/permission requirements are unstated.

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 every parameter is already documented; the slug caveat about there being no tool that lists installed plugins lives in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 pair (activate/deactivate) and resource (WordPress plugin), and the 'bereits installiertes' scope implicitly separates it from install_wordpress_plugin. It stops short of naming the sibling alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the other tool's name.

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 clear primary use case ('Abschalten eines Plugins, das die Website zerlegt oder kompromittiert wurde'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It offers no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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