WooCommerce: Delete media

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: deletion is permanent and irreversible because WordPress media cannot be trashed via REST, and the call requires the site's WordPress Application Password. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. missing media_id) or the response shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the permanent-deletion fact and zero filler. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag is noise, but otherwise 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility and auth, which are the critical facts. It is still incomplete on parameter meaning (0% schema coverage) and on what happens on success or error, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover at call time.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden and mostly fails: "media library item" loosely implies media_id, and "the site's WordPress Application Password" hints that site selects credentials, but neither parameter is named or explained. Format of media_id and whether site is a URL or key is left entirely unstated.

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 specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a media library item") and scopes it with examples (failed or duplicate upload). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named siblings wordpress_delete_media or wordpress_bulk_delete_media, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an implied when-to-use via the "failed or duplicate upload" examples and notes that trashing is not possible through the REST API, which explains why deletion is the only option. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer wordpress_delete_media or wordpress_bulk_delete_media instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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