Delete a WordPress user and optionally reassign their content to another author by specifying site and user IDs.
Delete a user and reassign their content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID to delete | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| reassign | No | User ID to reassign content to |
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: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "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. It hints that content is reassigned, but never says what happens if the optional 'reassign' is omitted (content deleted?), whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/authorization are required. For an irreversible destructive operation this is a substantial gap.
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 tight sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and no waste. It is slightly too terse for the ambiguity it leaves around the reassignment 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 3-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: fields are documented in the schema, but the semantics of the optional reassignment, side effects, and required permissions are unaddressed.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'reassign their content' loosely corresponds to the 'reassign' parameter but does not clarify its optionality or the consequence of omitting it, adding little 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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Delete a user') and adds an important qualifier ('and reassign their content'), so the scope is more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from the near-identical sibling wp_delete_user, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the sibling wp_delete_user as an alternative. The implied context (removing a user) is all an agent gets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.