Create a plugin (alias of install)

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate this is a write operation that is not read-only. The description only restates 'Install a plugin' and adds the alias fact, which is naming information, not behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., filesystem changes, activation behavior), permissions needed, or what happens on failure. With no additional behavioral disclosure beyond the basic action, the score is low.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence clarifies the alias relationship, which is useful for disambiguation but not redundant. It is concise and well-structured, though the alias note could be considered slightly extraneous if the sibling tool already covers that context.

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 write operation with no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description is thin. It does not explain what happens after installation (e.g., default activation status, return value, or errors), nor does it mention how the alias differs functionally from install_plugin (it does not differ). The status parameter defaults to 'inactive' implying installation without activation, but that is not conveyed in the description. An agent would need to infer behavior from the schema and annotations, making this incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters (slug, status, site_id) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Install a plugin from the WordPress.org repository.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling install_plugin by explicitly noting it is an alias, so an agent understands they perform the same operation. This resolves any ambiguity about the misleading title 'Create a plugin'.

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 identifies install_plugin as a clearer name but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over install_plugin or when not to use it. It does not state preferred usage, conditions, or alternatives beyond noting the alias relationship. The instruction is implicitly that either works, but no direct selection criteria are given.

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