Deactivate a plugin

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the returned was_active field, the hard refusal for AlphaBridge components, and the consequence that deactivating them would break the connection. It does not address what happens when the plugin is already inactive, a notable omission given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and argument format, then return value, then the refusal exception. Every sentence carries information; the phrase 'The answer says in was_active' is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: identifier provenance, the return field, the AlphaBridge refusal, and the reverse tool. The main missing piece is behavior on an already-inactive plugin, which matters because idempotentHint is false.

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% and already documents the plugin parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming wp_list_plugins as the authoritative source of the value and restating that anything else is refused, reinforcing the strict matching requirement.

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 (deactivate) and resource (plugin), and pins down the identifier format with a concrete example (akismet/akismet.php) sourced from wp_list_plugins. It explicitly names wp_activate_plugin as the reverse operation, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Covers use (deactivate an installed plugin), how to obtain the argument (via wp_list_plugins), when-not (AlphaBridge itself is refused, with the reason: it would end the connection or remove tools), and the alternative route (wp-admin under Plugins). The reverse sibling is named, giving a clean selection decision.

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