Delete a WooCommerce product by ID from a specified site, optionally skipping the trash with force deletion. Use it to remove unwanted catalog items via WordPress MCP.
Delete a WooCommerce product
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Product ID | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| force | No | Force delete (skip trash) |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose that this is an irreversible destructive operation, whether items go to trash by default, or what permissions are required. The only hint of trashing behavior lives in the schema's 'force' parameter, not the description.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool.
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 irreversibility warnings, default trash behavior, and the consequences of the force flag – all things an agent should know before invoking a delete.
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, and force are all documented in the schema, including the trash-skipping semantics of force. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 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?
The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (WooCommerce product), making the operation unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby destructive siblings such as woo_delete_variation, woo_delete_category, or woo_delete_coupon beyond the resource noun.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the trash-vs-permanent distinction that would let an agent choose correctly. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.