Install a plugin

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

Annotations already convey non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds the important disclosure that installation writes files to the server and requires filesystem write access. This extends beyond the annotations by explaining the concrete side effect and prerequisite. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence conveys the primary action and the optional activation; the second covers the search-first guidance and the side-effect of file writes. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent how to get the slug, what the action does, and the permission requirement. It does not describe error scenarios (e.g., plugin already installed, invalid slug) or the exact result of success, but these are not essential for basic invocation. A minor gap exists, but nothing critical is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (slug, site_id, activate). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema — it briefly mentions 'optionally activating it straight away' which is redundant with the schema's activate description. The schema already explains the slug and provides examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 states a specific action ('Install a plugin from the WordPress.org repository by its slug') with the option to activate. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_plugins or get_plugin by focusing on installation vs. reading. The verb and resource are precise.

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 explicitly instructs to search first with search_plugins to get the right slug, which is a clear precondition. It also notes the requirement for filesystem write access. This gives the agent practical guidance on how to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative installation methods (e.g., installing from a local zip). Still, it's strong guidance.

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