wp_activate_plugin

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details: the activation hook runs immediately and can cause fatal errors, dry_run defaults to true and changes nothing, allow_prod defaults to false to protect production, and activating an already-active plugin is a no-op. It clearly states side effects and default behaviors, compensating for the lack of annotations.

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 informative but slightly repetitive, with the 'DEFAULTS TO' phrasing used twice. It is structured in clear sentences and covers essential warnings without excessive verbosity. The repetition is minor and does not hinder comprehension, but a more concise version could improve readability.

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?

The description covers activation behavior, dry-run semantics, production protection, and plugin name formats, but it omits the meaning of the required `install` parameter and does not describe the output or return value (though no output schema is provided). This missing information leaves a significant gap for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 explains the `plugin` parameter (accepts slug, file, or .php path), `dry_run` (preview vs. apply), and `allow_prod` (production guard). However, the required `install` parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving users to guess its meaning (likely a site identifier). This gap reduces the overall parameter coverage despite explanations for three of four parameters.

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 tool's function: 'Activate one already-installed plugin.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wp_deactivate_plugin and wp_list_plugins. The purpose is immediately identifiable without needing to inspect 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 provides practical usage warnings, such as the risk of breaking a live site and the recommendation to test on staging first. It also explains the dry_run and allow_prod flags, giving clear guidance on safe execution. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the actionable advice is sufficient for most use cases.

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