Remove a taxonomy term permanently by specifying its site, taxonomy, and term ID. Use it to clean up unused categories, tags, or custom taxonomy terms.
Delete a term from any taxonomy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Term ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| taxonomy | Yes | Taxonomy name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Input schema / properties / siteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Site id (see list_sites)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "taxonomy",
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "taxonomy",
+ "id"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about deletion being permanent, what happens to posts or child terms attached to the deleted term, or what permissions are needed. One sentence cannot cover the destructive semantics of a delete operation with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 too thin: it omits irreversibility, side effects on assigned content, and error conditions. The annotations being absent means the description should have picked up that load and did not.
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 100% (id, site, taxonomy all documented), so the baseline is 3. 'From any taxonomy' slightly reinforces that the taxonomy parameter accepts arbitrary registered taxonomies, but adds no format detail beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Delete a term') and scopes it with 'from any taxonomy', which tells the agent the taxonomy parameter is a selector rather than a constraint. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings like wp_delete_category, wp_delete_tag, or seo_delete_term_seo, which also remove terms.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given that wp_delete_category and wp_delete_tag sit right next to this tool and operate on specific taxonomies, the omission of any routing advice is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.