wp-cli-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, requires admin permissions, affects site functionality, or has confirmation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and behavioral context.

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's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. This is an example of optimal brevity for simple tools.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens after deletion (success/failure indicators), whether the theme must be inactive first, or potential side effects. The combination of destructive operation and minimal description creates significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 the single parameter 'slug' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition from the description.

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 theme' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (theme), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like wp_theme_activate or wp_theme_install, which would require more specific language about what distinguishes deletion from other theme operations.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., theme must be inactive), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete active theme), or related tools (e.g., wp_theme_list to identify themes first). This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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