delete_skillDelete a saved skill (playbook) from your WordPress site. Removes user-defined skills, allowing overrides of bundled playbooks.
Delete one of your saved playbooks. Bundled playbooks cannot be deleted, but a saved skill of the same name will override one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the saved skill to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Delete one of your saved playbooks', a destructive action, but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction, and per the rubric the score must be 1 even though the bundled/override nuance is useful.
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?
Two sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by a useful caveat. The second sentence is slightly awkward but earns its place by explaining the override behavior.
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 one-parameter delete tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the name does not exist, or what the response will be.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the name parameter. The description reinforces 'saved' vs 'bundled' but does not add meaningful parameter syntax, values, or edge-case behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('one of your saved playbooks'), and adds a distinguishing constraint: bundled playbooks cannot be deleted, only saved ones. This clearly separates it from generic delete tools among the 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 gives a partial when-not: bundled playbooks cannot be deleted. It does not name an alternative tool or specify when an agent should prefer this tool over another delete or skill-management tool, so routing guidance is mostly implied by the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.