WordPress: Wp theme delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further by naming the failure mode and its error code ('theme_active'), the two refused targets, the required capability, and a minimum bridge version – all real behavioral detail an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not say whether the theme's files are removed permanently or whether removal is recoverable, which keeps it short of 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?

The destructive operation is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining sentences each add a distinct constraint (refusal cases, capability, version). Slight density issue from the embedded version/capability notes, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, who may call it, and how it fails. The remaining hole is the unexplained 'site' parameter and the absence of any post-delete state description.

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 carry parameter meaning; it clarifies that 'slug' identifies the installed theme to delete, which is the key semantic. The required 'site' parameter is never explained (multi-site targeting) and no slug format or example is given, leaving a real gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an installed theme by slug') and its scope. This is clearly distinct from siblings like wordpress_specialist_wp_theme_file_delete (files) and wordpress_specialist_wp_theme_activate, so an agent can pick it out without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and exclusions: it refuses the active theme and the current default theme, and the caller must hold delete_themes. What is missing is a pointer to the alternatives (e.g. activate/switch theme first, or use theme_file_delete for a single file), so the guidance is contextual rather than routing.

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