wp_users_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses that deletion is permanent (no trash), that reassign transfers content ownership, and that a confirm string is required. This goes beyond a generic 'delete' statement, though it does not cover response shape or post-conditions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then packs essential constraints (permanence, required parameters, confirm format, MODE=full) into a compact, scannable structure.

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 action with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what happens (permanent delete), what is required (id, reassign, confirm), and execution constraints (MODE=full). It does not mention response format or error cases, but the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: reassign is described as 'user id to inherit deleted user's content', confirm's exact format is given ('DELETE_USER_<id>'), and id is contextually clear from the tool name and confirm pattern. All three parameters are semantically accounted for.

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 opens with the specific verb and resource: 'Delete a user'. It immediately clarifies the permanent nature ('WP REST has no trash for users — always permanent'), distinguishing this delete operation from trashable content types and setting clear expectations.

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 provides clear prerequisites: all three required parameters, the confirm format, and the MODE=full requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the unique resource (user deletion) makes the usage context clear. The permanence warning implicitly communicates when not to use it.

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