wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether activation requires admin permissions, if it affects site functionality immediately, potential side effects (like plugin conflicts), or what happens if the plugin is already active. The description is technically accurate but lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'activate' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or how this differs from related plugin operations. Given the complexity of plugin management and potential side effects, more context is needed for safe agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage with the 'slug' parameter clearly documented, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides (no examples of valid slugs, no clarification that this is WordPress-specific slug format). It simply restates the tool's purpose without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('activate') and resource ('an installed plugin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'wp_plugin_deactivate' beyond the verb, nor does it specify what 'activate' means in WordPress context (enabling functionality vs just marking as active).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wp_plugin_install' (for new plugins) or 'wp_plugin_deactivate'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (plugin must be installed) or consequences of activation, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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