Delete a WooCommerce product category by site and category ID to remove unwanted categories from your WordPress catalog.
Delete a product category
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) |
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 burden of disclosure. 'Delete' implies a mutation, but the description does not state whether the action is irreversible, what happens to posts assigned to the category, or what permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral context.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects on associated content, and confirmation of irreversibility, leaving the agent under-informed.
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%, with both 'id' and 'site' documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 (product category), clearly distinguishing it from create/update/list siblings by the inherent action. However, it provides no scope or explicit sibling differentiation beyond the verb itself.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., woo_update_category), no prerequisites such as required permissions, and no warnings about irreversibility. The description assumes the reader already knows the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.