wp_delete_product

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral side effects. It does disclose the key default behavior—moves to trash—which signals a recoverable delete, but it does not explain what force=true does, whether the deletion can be permanent, or any permission or irreversibility concerns.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical about trash behavior is high-value information that earns its place.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the effect of force, avoids synthesizing the confirmation requirement into the operation, and gives no sense of what happens after deletion beyond the default trash behavior. The trash detail is helpful, but an agent still lacks enough context to safely reason about permanent deletion.

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 only 33%, with only 'confirm' documented and 'id' and 'force' left bare. The description adds only an indirect hint that trash is the default behavior, which relates weakly to 'force', but it does not clarify the id parameter or the interaction between confirm and force. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a WooCommerce product'), making it clearly distinct from sibling delete tools like wp_delete_post or wp_delete_page. The parenthetical about moving to trash adds a useful scoping detail rather than restating the tool name.

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 the tool is used when a WooCommerce product needs to be deleted, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools or what conditions must be met. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage mostly inferred from the tool name.

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