Uninstall WordPress themes

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

The annotations already declare the operation destructive and non-read-only, so the description's main value is adding the asynchronous behavior: a successful response only means the uninstall job is queued. This is important runtime context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain how to track job completion or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second provides essential path/identifier guidance, and the third discloses async behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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 simple destructive tool with three well-schematized parameters, the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, how to identify the installation, and the asynchronous response behavior. It does not describe the response payload or how to follow up on the queued job, but no output schema exists to fill that gap, making the description reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters, so the description adds no new semantics for 'themes' or 'username'. It does add useful context for 'software' by explaining the identifier is in the path and how to obtain it, but 'username' remains only superficially described as 'username parameter'.

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 ('Uninstall') and resource ('one or more themes from a WordPress installation'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The tool name and title reinforce the same purpose, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like install/activate/update theme operations.

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 description clearly implies when to use it—when installed themes need to be removed from a WordPress installation—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as install, activate, or update theme tools. It includes helpful guidance on obtaining the software identifier from a GET endpoint, but lacks explicit exclusions like 'do not use for active themes'.

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