Deploy WordPress plugin

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral detail: the tool uploads all plugin files, triggers deployment, and handles upload credentials internally. It does not spell out whether existing plugin files are overwritten, but the destructive annotation covers the general risk and the description meaningfully extends beyond it.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers a high-value operational warning about not calling a separate upload endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with three fully documented required parameters and a destructive annotation, this description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, how it handles credentials, and what not to do. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap, though slightly more detail about the deployment outcome or overwrite behavior would strengthen it further.

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%, so each parameter already has meaningful documentation. The description's mention of 'directory' and 'hosting server' loosely aligns with pluginPath and domain, but it adds no new syntax, format, or relationship information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 precise action: 'Deploy a WordPress plugin from a directory to a hosting server.' It clearly identifies the resource as a WordPress plugin rather than a theme, static site, or generic application, which distinguishes it from many sibling deploy tools. It also explains the mechanism ('uploads all plugin files and triggers plugin deployment') without ambiguity.

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 context for when to use the tool: deploying a WordPress plugin from a directory. It explicitly warns against using a separate upload-url endpoint or uploading files manually, which is actionable guidance for tool selection. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling deploy tools like theme/static-site/PHP deployments, but the plugin-specific wording makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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