wp_delete_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by distinguishing between the recoverable trash action and the permanent destructive action via force:true. It omits other behavioral aspects like required permissions or error behavior, but the most consequential behavior is clearly stated.

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 sentence efficiently communicates the default behavior and the key exception. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a relatively simple delete tool, covering the core trash-vs-permanent behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value or success/failure indication, and it leaves the ref parameter's accepted forms (ID or slug) undocumented in prose.

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 description adds meaning to the force parameter by explaining its effect, but it does not explain the ref parameter beyond what the schema's anyOf already implies. The dry_run parameter is covered by the schema description, so the description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 clearly identifies the resource (WordPress page) and the action (trash or permanently delete with force:true). It is unambiguous and self-contained, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools such as wp_delete_post, relying instead on the tool name for that distinction.

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 implies when to use the tool — when you need to delete a WordPress page — and clarifies the force flag's role. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, such as wp_delete_post for posts.

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