wp_delete_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers almost nothing: it does not state that deletion is destructive or irreversible when forced, does not say the default is a soft-delete/trash, and does not mention permission or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

This is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should disclose reversibility, the trash default, and what the response returns. None of that is present, leaving the agent without the context needed to call it safely.

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% (both 'id' and 'force' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, but nothing is missing from the schema side.

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?

Clear verb+resource combination ('Delete a WordPress media item') that identifies the domain and object unambiguously. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling destructive tools (wp_delete_post, wc_delete_product, etc.), but the resource noun makes the target obvious.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus wp_get_media, wp_update_post-adjacent flows, or how it relates to other media tools. Nothing is said about the trash-vs-permanent distinction that the 'force' parameter implies, so the agent must infer the default behavior.

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