Deactivate a plugin

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

Annotations only indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: features stop working immediately and settings/data are normally retained. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's effect. It does not contradict any annotation, nor does it describe edge cases like deactivating an inactive plugin, but for a simple action it is good.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It conveys the immediate effect and the retention detail without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 mutating tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what happens (deactivation, immediate effect, data retention). It could mention prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be active) but that is implied by 'active plugin'. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (plugin and site_id), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific information, so it does not enhance what the schema already offers. This matches the baseline score for fully covered schemas.

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 a specific action ('deactivate an active plugin') and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like activate_plugin and delete_plugin by focusing on deactivation, and the retention of settings/data implies the contrast with deletion. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states when to use it (for an active plugin) and hints at the distinction from deletion by noting settings/data are retained. It does not explicitly name alternatives like activate_plugin or install_plugin, but the retention note is sufficient to guide a reasonable agent. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but is clear enough.

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