Activate Plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action 'activate' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., changing plugin state), idempotency, error behavior, or required context like authentication via username/software. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 tool with 3 well-documented parameters, the description is still incomplete. It omits essential context like installation prerequisites, expected outcomes, and relationships to sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should provide more operational context but fails to do so.

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 describes all three parameters (plugin slug, software identifier, username) with 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since parameters are already self-documented.

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 'Activate a WordPress plugin' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wp_plugins_install, wp_plugins_deactivate, and wp_plugins_update. It directly states the tool's function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the plugin must already be installed), nor does it reference related tools like wp_plugins_install or wp_plugins_list. There is no when/to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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