wp_install_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and optional activation; it does not mention mutational side effects, required permissions, behavior if the plugin already exists, installation failure modes, or what the response contains. For a state-changing tool this is a meaningful transparency 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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, source, and optional behavior with zero filler. It is concise and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and primary behavior. However, it omits practical details an agent might need for correct invocation, such as what happens when the plugin is already installed and whether the operation returns a confirmation or error. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%: both 'slug' and 'activate' have descriptive text with examples and a default. The description adds context about the source repository and the option to activate, but this largely overlaps with the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 ('Install') and resource ('plugin from the WordPress.org repository by its slug'), clearly stating the tool's core function. It also mentions the optional activation behavior, which distinguishes it from wp_activate_plugin. This makes the purpose unambiguous even without inspecting the 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you have a WordPress.org plugin slug and want to install it), and the optional activation note clarifies that you may not need a separate activate step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as pointing to wp_search_plugins for finding a slug or wp_activate_plugin for activating an already-installed plugin.

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