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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses server-side slug validation via wp-cli rather than the WP Toolkit inventory, the deliberate best-effort retry when inventory can't be read, and the fact that a failure response explicitly must not be read as proof the plugin is absent. That error-semantics detail is the kind of behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and the highest-stakes use case are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The final sentence is long and nested but justifies its length by covering a non-obvious failure mode.

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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, slug sourcing, fallback behavior, and failure interpretation. It does not say whether the operation is instantly reversible or what permissions the API token needs, which are the remaining relevant gaps.

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% — the schema already explains domain, slug-not-display-name, the false=enabled boolean, and the multi-install site_url case. The description adds only the server-side validation angle for the slug, so the baseline of 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 pair (activate/deactivate) on a precisely scoped resource (an already-installed WordPress plugin), immediately distinguishing it from install_wordpress_plugin. The added note that plugins installed via wp-admin or FTP are also covered sharpens the scope further.

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?

Names a concrete primary use case (shutting off a plugin that wrecked or compromised the site), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly contrast against install_wordpress_plugin or start_bulk_wordpress_update, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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