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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the rollback-on-activation-failure behavior (rolled_back=true), the keep_on_failure override, and that install and activation are reported as distinct outcomes. It also surfaces hard host limits (wp-config.php/wp-content writability, must-use cache-plugin blockers) that no retry can fix.

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 in the first sentence, then layers error-handling and host-limit context. Each sentence carries distinct operational value, though the third paragraph is dense enough that a shorter phrasing might improve scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers failure semantics and host constraints thoroughly. The only gap is the unaddressed site_url parameter, which is a minor omission for a multi-site context.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains slug with an example, zip_url as an alternative source, activate as the optional activation step, and keep_on_failure as the debug-retention flag. site_url, however, is never mentioned, leaving one of the five parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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) and resource (plugin) on a connected WordPress site, and specifies the two accepted sources (wordpress.org slug or zip URL) plus the optional activation. This clearly separates it from siblings like wordpress_list_plugins or wordpress_manage_plugin.

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-not guidance for cache plugins, including the precondition of checking wordpress_performance and the install_recommended=false gate, plus the keep_on_failure escape hatch for debugging. It stops short of routing between this tool and wordpress_manage_plugin for cases where a plugin is already installed, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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