Install WordPress plugins

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

Discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'This operation is asynchronous: a successful response only means the install job has been queued, not that the plugins are ready.' This tells the agent not to expect immediate completion. It doesn't cover how to poll for job status, but the most important behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Three short paragraphs with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the identifier/discovery instructions are compact, and the async caveat is a single sentence. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

Covers the key prerequisites and async behavior, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the response contains or how to check whether the queued job eventually succeeds. The `username` parameter also remains undefined, and there is no mention of verification via sibling tools like hosting_listInstalledWordPressPluginsV1.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where to obtain the `software` identifier, which the schema alone does not provide. However, the `username` parameter is described only as 'username parameter' in both schema and description, leaving its meaning unresolved.

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: 'Install one or more plugins on an existing WordPress installation.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like activate/update/uninstall by focusing on installation, and the discovery endpoint reference ('plugin slugs available for installation') clarifies this is catalog-based install. However, it does not explicitly contrast with hosting_deployWordPressPluginV1, leaving some potential ambiguity.

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 operational context: the tool applies to an existing WordPress installation, tells the agent how to get the software identifier ('obtained from GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/installations (the `id` field)') and how to discover valid plugin slugs ('Use GET /api/hosting/v1/wordpress/plugins'). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, such as 'use deploy for custom plugins,' so it stops short of a 5.

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