wp_delete_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It claims 'safety confirmations and detailed feedback' without saying what is confirmed or what feedback is returned, and says nothing about permissions, cascading effects on revisions/comments/media, or reversibility beyond trash. The vague reassurance is close to filler rather than disclosure.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is CLI examples that mirror a command-line interface the MCP tool does not expose. The formatting is clean, yet a large share of the content does not earn its place against the actual schema.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trash/permanent axis but omits what data is destroyed alongside the post, any permission requirements, and the meaning of the only real parameter. It is minimum viable, not complete.

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 schema has exactly one parameter ('site', 100% documented), yet the description presents CLI-style flags (`--id=123`, `--force=true`) that do not exist in the schema. An agent could try to pass id/force based on this text, making the description actively misleading about the call surface rather than 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+resource ('Deletes a WordPress post') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling wp_delete_page by naming the entity type. The trash vs. permanent distinction further sharpens what this tool does.

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 usage examples give concrete conditions: default behavior trashes, `--force=true` permanently deletes, and bulk means multiple calls. However, it never states when to prefer trashing over permanent deletion or any preconditions, so an agent gets context but not decision criteria.

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