wp_delete_synced_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'permanently delete' indicates irreversibility, but it does not mention side effects such as impact on posts using the pattern, auth requirements, or the meaning of the 'force' parameter (which is constrained to true in the schema). The dry_run parameter is also unexplained in the description. There is no information about response behavior or failure modes.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and free of redundancy. However, brevity here comes at the cost of necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with important constraints or usage notes; it conveys the basic action but omits critical context. It is appropriately sized for a trivial description but insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 tool with no annotations, output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (there is no output schema), does not clarify the force flag semantics, and does not mention any preconditions or consequences. An agent cannot fully judge the impact of calling this tool beyond knowing it deletes something permanently.

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 only 33% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description does not add any explanation for the 'id' or 'force' parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage; for instance, it doesn't clarify that 'force' is always true or what dry_run does. The description offers no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and a specific resource ('synced pattern'), with the qualifier 'permanently' clarifying the operation's nature. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling delete tools like wp_delete_post or wp_delete_page. However, the resource name is distinct enough that an agent can infer the target.

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. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether the pattern must be unused), or when to prefer other deletion tools. The sibling list includes many delete operations, but the description offers no selection criteria.

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