Delete Plugin

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: automatic deactivation before deletion, irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), and the safety guard on production refusing execution without confirm_production=true. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences with front-loaded action, a concise parameter clarification, and a critical warning. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: the action, the parameter format, the production guard, and irreversibility. No output schema is present, but the return value isn't critical for a delete operation. It could mention required permissions or what success looks like, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as reiterating the plugin basename format. It does not elaborate on response_format or confirm_production beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Deactivate (if needed) and permanently delete' with a clear resource 'an installed plugin from the site'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_set_plugin_status (activation/deactivation) and wp_update_plugin by emphasizing permanent deletion.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: for permanent removal, with an explicit step to deactivate if needed. It also introduces the production safety flag confirm_production=true, which is a contextual usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for deactivation-only workflows, so it misses a direct comparison.

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