Uninstall WordPress plugins

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only, and the description reinforces that by saying plugins are uninstalled. It adds helpful behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous and a successful response only means the uninstall job has been queued. This is important for setting agent expectations about the response.

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 compact and well organized: the first sentence states the action, the second explains the key prerequisite, and the third discloses the asynchronous behavior. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundant 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 simple but destructive async operation, the description covers the essential prerequisites and success semantics. Since there is no output schema, the async note partially compensates by clarifying what a successful response means. It does not describe the response shape or how to track the queued job, but that is a minor gap for this tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value by explaining how to obtain the `software` identifier from the installations endpoint's `id` field and by confirming that plugins are provided as slugs. The `username` parameter is left entirely to the schema, but overall the description supplements the schema usefully.

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 ('Uninstall') and a specific resource ('one or more plugins from a WordPress installation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plugin operations such as activate, deactivate, install, and update. The plural support is an explicit scope detail that helps the agent understand its capability beyond the title.

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 gives clear operational context: the software identifier must come from the WordPress installation list endpoint and should be placed in the path. It also clarifies that plugins are selected by slug. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the intended use is clear enough for selection.

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