wordpress_activate_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Activate a plugin' implies a mutation (changing state), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required (e.g., admin access), whether activation is reversible (via deactivation), potential side effects (e.g., plugin hooks running, conflicts), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Activate a plugin', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. For conciseness alone, it's optimal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations, 1 parameter at 0% coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, usage context, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies system state, this minimal description is insufficient to ensure correct and safe invocation by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'plugin' refers to (e.g., plugin slug, name, ID), format expectations, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter meaning unclear beyond the generic term.

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 'Activate a plugin' clearly states the action (activate) and resource (plugin), which is adequate for basic understanding. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'wordpress_deactivate_plugin' beyond the opposite action, nor does it specify what 'activate' entails in the WordPress context (e.g., enabling functionality, making it available for use). It's vague about the scope and impact.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the plugin must be installed and inactive), when not to use it (e.g., for themes, use 'wordpress_activate_theme'), or related tools like 'wordpress_get_plugin_status' to check status first. Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit context.

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