wp_delete_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that force:false archives the widget to wp_inactive_widgets, while force:true permanently deletes it. This communicates the key side effects and irreversibility risk beyond what the schema alone expresses.

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?

Two short sentences contain all essential behavioral information with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the force distinction is compactly stated, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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 small delete-style tool, the description covers both the default non-destructive path and the permanent deletion path, while the schema documents dry_run. There is no output schema, so return-value documentation is not strictly required; missing details about id sourcing or error behavior are minor for this scope.

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 covers only dry_run explicitly, so the description meaningfully compensates by explaining the force parameter's two states and their consequences. The id parameter remains lightly documented, but its role is largely inferable from the operation name, and dry_run is already described in 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 starts with a specific action ('Remove') and resource ('a widget'), and immediately clarifies the two deletion modes. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like wp_move_widget or wp_update_widget, since the intended operation is clearly removal rather than repositioning or editing.

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 context is clear: use this tool when a widget needs to be removed, either to the inactive list or permanently. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the deletion semantics and force distinction make the appropriate use case unambiguous for an agent scanning sibling tool names.

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