Activate a theme

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the change is 'high-impact' and should be staged first. It doesn't mention reversibility or auth requirements, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the risk warning follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a destructive operation.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the destructive profile, the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: the operational risk advisory. Nothing critical is missing, though naming the inspect-first sibling would have made it 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%, so both parameters (stylesheet slug, confirm='activate') are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active theme.' An agent immediately knows this mutates the site's active theme, distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like wp_themes_list. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 a caution condition ('on a live site... prefer a staging copy') but never states when to call this tool versus the alternatives (e.g., wp_themes_list to inspect first, or wp_plugin_action for plugin counterparts). Usage is implied through the risk warning rather than spelled out.

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