wordpress_delete_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation (delete/trash) and explains the behavioral difference based on the force parameter. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible from trash, error conditions, or response format, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the action, and the second explains the key parameter behavior without any redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter effect but lacks important context like permissions, reversibility, error handling, or response details. Given the complexity of a delete operation, more completeness would be beneficial for safe agent 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the semantics of the 'force' parameter (permanent delete vs. move to trash), which is crucial for correct usage. However, it does not clarify the 'postId' parameter (e.g., what format or source it expects), leaving one of the two parameters partially unexplained.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a post'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_bulk_delete_posts' by focusing on single post deletion, and from 'wordpress_trash_post' (implied) by explaining the force parameter's effect on permanent vs. trash deletion.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to delete a post) and guidance on parameter usage (force=true for permanent deletion, otherwise trash). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'wordpress_bulk_delete_posts' for multiple posts, which prevents a perfect score.

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