wordpress_wc_delete_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting orders). The force parameter's effect is also unexplained. This leaves significant behavioral gaps 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient despite being under-specified.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral implications, success/failure conditions, or return values. The minimal description leaves too many gaps for safe and effective 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter, providing no semantic information about productId (what format? existing product?) or force (what does forcing do? default behavior?). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('WooCommerce product'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from generic deletion tools like 'wordpress_delete_post' by specifying the WooCommerce context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other WooCommerce deletion tools (though none are listed among siblings).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., product must exist), consequences, or when to use force parameter. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context unclear.

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