wordpress_delete_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional backup' which is a useful safety feature, but it does not explain whether deletion is permanent, how backup works, where files are deleted from, or if any permissions are required. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is efficient, but it reads as a fragment rather than a well-structured sentence. It is not overly verbose, yet it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It earns a middle score for being concise but lacking full grammatical construction.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description should still provide context on what 'file' means, the backup behavior, and any side effects. The description does not explain the file system scope, backup location, or return values. For a destructive tool, this is notably incomplete.

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 0%, and the description provides minimal parameter context. It implies 'backup' relates to the createBackup parameter, but the phrase 'optional backup' conflicts with the schema's 'required' list, which marks createBackup as required. The 'path' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description adds little value beyond the raw 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 description clearly states the action 'Delete file' with the additional nuance 'with optional backup'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy, move, or write. However, it does not specify what type of file (e.g., theme file, plugin file, arbitrary WordPress file), leaving some 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy, move, or write. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites, safety warnings, or contexts where deletion is appropriate. The agent is left without decision-making criteria.

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