Activate a plugin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral detail beyond that: 'Activation runs the plugin's code immediately' and highlights the risk of a fatal site error with incompatible versions. This goes well beyond the structured fields and gives the agent essential safety context.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 activation tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential risk (fatal errors) and the immediate execution behavior. It doesn't explain the success/failure response, but that is not necessary for correct invocations. This is complete enough for typical use.

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% and each parameter (plugin, site_id, network_wide) is already described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, so while it doesn't harm, it also provides no extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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: 'Activate an installed plugin.' Clear and unambiguous, and the description's mention of running the plugin's code further clarifies the action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like deactivate_plugin and install_plugin without needing their schemas.

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?

Provides clear context for when activation is appropriate (installed plugins) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The caution to test on staging addresses a key risk but is more of a warning than usage guidance. Still, the core condition ('installed plugin') is implied and the staging advice is valuable operational guidance.

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