wp-cli-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a plugin' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's safe or has side effects (e.g., breaking site functionality), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'Delete a plugin' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive deletion with no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, nor does it provide usage context. For a mutation tool with significant implications, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'slug' documented as 'Plugin slug'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Delete a plugin' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (plugin), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_plugin_activate or wp_plugin_install by specifying deletion rather than other plugin operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from wp_theme_delete or wp_post_delete, which target different resources, so it's not fully sibling-specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be deactivated first), when not to use it (e.g., for core plugins), or refer to related tools like wp_plugin_deactivate or wp_plugin_list for context. This leaves the agent without usage context beyond the basic action.

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