aism_theme_action

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true; the description goes beyond them by naming the capability required for deletion and the hard refusals (active theme, parent theme, multisite). It stops short of saying whether an update is rollback-safe or what the mutation returns, which is a modest remaining gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and edge cases in descending order of importance. No restatement of the name or 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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent most needs: how to obtain the identifier, the permission requirement, the disallowed targets, and the multisite restriction. Return values are not described, but the mutation outcome (activate/deactivate/delete) is implied clearly enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `site` is described), so the description must carry `theme` and `action` – and it does: `theme` is defined as a stylesheet identifier obtainable from aism_themes_list, and each enum value is given behavior (activate swaps the active theme, update uses the advertised package, delete has permission/eligibility rules). Only the `site` parameter's default semantics are left to the schema.

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 first sentence gives three specific verbs (activate/update/delete) against a specific resource (an installed theme), and pins the identifier to the stylesheet slug sourced from aism_themes_list. 'Installed theme' implicitly separates it from aism_theme_install and aism_theme_upload, so an agent can pick correctly without opening the schema.

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?

States concrete conditions: activation replaces the current active theme, deletion needs themes:delete and is blocked for the active theme or its parent, updates pull the WordPress-advertised package, and multisite mutations are unavailable. It lacks an explicit 'use aism_theme_install instead when the theme isn't present' sentence, but the prerequisites and exclusions are well above typical guidance.

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