Delete WP Credentials

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a consequence that structured fields cannot express: 'Anything using that credential stops authenticating immediately.' That instant-effect disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs before choosing to revoke.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the hard constraint (Cloud for WordPress only) and the instant-effect warning. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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, single-domain revocation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the applicable context, both revocation modes, the uuid source, and the operational consequence. Minor gaps remain around wp_user defaults and the dry_run validation path, though the schema covers those fields.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description still adds value by linking uuid to its origin (list_wp_credentials) and clarifying that all: true revokes every credential for the user, which is more meaningful than the bare schema text. It says nothing about domain, wp_user, or dry_run, so it is not fully additive.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke), a specific resource (WordPress application password), and a scope qualifier (CLOUD FOR WORDPRESS ONLY). It also distinguishes the two revocation modes (single uuid vs all: true), so an agent can tell exactly what this does versus siblings like list_wp_credentials.

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?

Explicitly bounds the applicable context with 'CLOUD FOR WORDPRESS ONLY' and points at list_wp_credentials as the source of the uuid, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name an explicit alternative for the non-revocation case or mention prerequisites/permissions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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