mcp_delete_theme

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the 'inactive' precondition. It does not say whether theme files are removed from disk, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions/capabilities are required, or what happens if the target theme is active.

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 terse phrase with zero filler, and the critical constraint ('inactive') is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than overly long, but it wastes no space.

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 leaves major gaps: it does not explain the consequence of deletion (file removal), the required capability, the failure mode for active themes, or how to discover theme folder names. Only the 'inactive' guard is conveyed.

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% and both parameters ('site' referencing list_sites, 'stylesheet' as theme folder name) are self-documented. The description adds nothing about parameter format or naming, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 (delete) and resource (theme) with a scoping qualifier ('inactive'), which is enough to separate it from wp_list_themes, wp_activate_theme, and mcp_install_theme. It does not, however, name any sibling or clarify its relationship to mcp_update_theme/mcp_search_themes, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 word 'inactive' implies a precondition — you cannot delete the currently active theme — which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how to identify an inactive theme (wp_list_themes / wp_get_active_theme), and no alternatives or exclusions spelled out.

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