Plugin action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: a delete confirmation guard, the install source, and a security warning about activation. It does not cover authentication needs, reversibility, or per-action return behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, with the important destructive-action prerequisite front-loaded after the action list. Every sentence adds necessary meaning.

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 multi-action mutating tool with destructive/open-world annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key safety prerequisites and install source. It leaves some per-action parameter mapping implicit, but the schema supplies the plugin-file parameter and enum action values.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning for the action enum, the slug parameter's install use, and the confirm value for deletion. It does not add semantics for the plugin parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 names four specific verbs (activate, deactivate, install, delete) and the resource (plugin), and it specifies that install uses a wordpress.org slug. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as wp_plugins_list, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear action-specific context: install comes from wordpress.org by slug, deletion requires confirm:"delete", and activating an untrusted plugin is a security decision. It does not state when not to use this tool or name a specific alternative for listing/viewing plugins.

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