wp-cli-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Activate a theme' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether activation affects site appearance immediately, potential downtime, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 'Activate a theme' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core function. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential action, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'activate' entails operationally, what happens on success/failure, or return values. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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%, with the single parameter 'slug' documented as 'Theme slug'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description, which applies 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 'Activate a theme' clearly states the action (activate) and resource (theme) with a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_theme_list (list themes) and wp_theme_install (install themes), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from wp_plugin_activate (activate plugin) which shares the same verb pattern. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation could be more precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., theme must be installed), when not to use it (e.g., if theme is already active), or refer to related tools like wp_theme_list to check current themes. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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