wordpress_activate_theme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool activates a theme, implying a mutation that changes site appearance, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions (e.g., admin access), side effects (e.g., breaking site if theme is incompatible), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy.

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 potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens post-activation. For a tool that changes site state, more context is needed to ensure safe usage.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'stylesheet' represents (e.g., theme directory name or identifier), its format, or examples. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, but the single parameter is straightforward, so a baseline 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 clearly states the action ('activate') and resource ('theme'), specifying it switches to the active theme. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_get_active_theme' (read) and 'wordpress_delete_theme' (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other theme-related tools like 'wordpress_theme_exists' or 'wordpress_get_themes'. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., theme must be installed), when not to use it (e.g., during maintenance), or direct alternatives (e.g., using 'wordpress_update_settings' for theme changes). The description implies usage for switching themes but lacks explicit context.

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