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 post' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It mentions the 'force' parameter in the schema but doesn't explain its behavioral impact (e.g., skipping trash). 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 is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a post'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters) and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or error conditions, nor does it explain the return value. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse or confusion by an agent.

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 100%, with both parameters (id and force) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter 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 post' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (post), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wp_post_create, wp_post_get, and wp_post_update by specifying deletion rather than creation, retrieval, or modification. However, it doesn't specify what type of post (e.g., WordPress post) or provide additional context about the resource.

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., needing an existing post ID), exclusions (e.g., when not to delete), or comparisons to related tools like wp_post_update or wp_post_get. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed decision-making.

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