Install a theme

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cover the mutation safety profile, while the description adds the important behavioral nuance that installation is separate from activation. It also clarifies the source (WordPress.org), which is an external dependency. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and scope are stated first, followed immediately by the critical exclusion (does not activate). Every word earns its place; it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 two parameters, one required, and a straightforward install action, the description covers the essential behavior, source, and non-activation. It lacks explicit mention of consequences like overwriting an existing theme or network dependency, but given the low complexity and annotations covering safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (slug and site_id) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds 'by slug' and 'from WordPress.org repository', which reinforces the slug parameter's meaning but adds little beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description provides minimal extra value here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Install'), names the resource ('a theme'), and specifies the source ('from the WordPress.org repository by slug'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from activation ('Does not activate it') and names the intended follow-up tools (activate_theme, draft workflow), making it clear how this tool differs from siblings like activate_theme or install_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 provides explicit usage context: it states that this tool installs but does not activate, and directs the agent to use activate_theme or the draft workflow afterwards. It also implies the appropriate use case (when a theme needs to be present but not active). This is clear, actionable guidance with named alternatives.

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