Delete a WordPress user and reassign their content to another user; requires site ID, user ID, and reassign user ID.
Delete a user (requires reassign parameter)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID to delete | |
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| reassign | Yes | 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",
- "reassign"
-]New value: +[
+ "site",
+ "id",
+ "reassign"
+]v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the deleted user's content, permission requirements, or side effects. The only behavioral hint is the reassign requirement, which the schema already enforces via the required list, so it adds essentially no new disclosure 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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant at the sentence level.
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, unannotated deletion tool with no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether the action is reversible, what occurs to the user's content beyond reassignment, whether confirmation is expected, or how it differs from mcp_delete_user.
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% with all three parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates that reassign is required, which the schema already declares, adding no syntax or semantic detail beyond the structured field.
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 and resource ('Delete a user'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similarly named sibling mcp_delete_user, so an agent has no basis in the description for choosing between them.
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 parenthetical '(requires reassign parameter)' hints at a precondition, but it is duplicated from the schema's required list and gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like mcp_delete_user, and no prerequisites such as capability or role checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.