wp_blocks_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behaviors: hash-based concurrent update prevention and dry-run support. However, it does not explicitly state that deletion is a permanent mutation of the parent post content, nor does it mention permission requirements or failure conditions. The verb 'delete' implies destructiveness, but side-effect context is incomplete.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: the action, the concurrency safety mechanism, and the dry-run capability. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with a complex 'at' selector (five locator modes), six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits guidance on how to construct the 'at' selector for non-hash modes, what happens to the surrounding content after deletion, and the need to specify ref and post_type. The schema provides structure but not enough context for reliable invocation across all modes.

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 67%, with ref, dry_run, allow_normalization, and if_unmodified_since already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining hash references (mapping to the 'at' hash mode) and dry-run (mapping to the dry_run parameter). However, it does not clarify the other 'at' locator modes (path, anchor, name, query) or the post_type parameter, leaving those to be inferred from schema structure.

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 'Delete one Gutenberg block', a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling block tools like wp_blocks_update, wp_blocks_insert, or wp_blocks_move. The resource type is precise, avoiding confusion with post, page, or tag delete tools.

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 implies usage—use this when you want to remove a single Gutenberg block—and highlights safety mechanisms like hash references and dry-run support. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wp_blocks_replace or wp_blocks_update, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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