wordpress_delete_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the deactivation prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, error handling (e.g., if plugin is active), or side effects (e.g., impact on site functionality). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 waste. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a plugin') and adds a critical constraint ('must be deactivated first') without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (destructive operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key details: parameter explanation, behavioral traits like permanence or permissions, and expected outcomes. The deactivation note is helpful but insufficient for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'plugin' parameter (e.g., format like slug or name, examples, or how to identify plugins). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the tool name, leaving the single required parameter undocumented.

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') and resource ('a plugin'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_deactivate_plugin' by specifying deletion rather than deactivation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'wordpress_delete_theme'), though the resource type is implied.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it ('must be deactivated first'), which is crucial for correct invocation. It implies an alternative or prerequisite action (deactivation) but doesn't name specific sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. deactivation alone).

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