wp_delete_cpt_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the useful default ('moves to trash by default') but omits that force permanently deletes, that confirm is required, and that permanent deletion is irreversible. For a destructive tool, this is a significant transparency 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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant detail — the default trash behavior — is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that this is a destructive action with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (half undocumented), the description is too minimal. It omits expected behavior for `force`, the confirmation requirement, return values, error conditions, and any permissions or side effects.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning only by clarifying the default trash behavior, which relates to the `force` parameter already described in the schema. It provides no additional semantics for `post_type` or `id` and does not reinforce that `confirm` must be true.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('custom post type item') and adds the default trash behavior, which is clear and distinguishes it from standard post deletion tools like wp_delete_post. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or contrast its scope, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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 the tool is for custom post type items rather than regular posts, pages, or media, which gives some context. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wp_delete_post, wp_delete_page, or other deletion tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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