wordpress_deactivate_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deactivate' implies a state change (likely requiring appropriate permissions), but the description doesn't mention whether this is reversible, what happens to plugin data, whether it affects site functionality, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant behavioral gaps.

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 maximally concise with just three words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for such a straightforward operation and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential 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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, reversibility, side effects), parameter details, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of WordPress plugin management and the complete lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 single parameter 'plugin' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no additional parameter information - it doesn't explain what format the plugin identifier should take (slug, name, path), whether it's case-sensitive, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Deactivate a plugin' clearly states the action (deactivate) and resource (plugin), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'wordpress_activate_plugin' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other plugin-related tools like 'wordpress_delete_plugin' or 'wordpress_get_plugin_status'.

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., plugin must be active), consequences (e.g., functionality loss), or when to choose deactivation over deletion. With many sibling tools available, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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