BUG: inconsistent DataFrame.agg behavoir when passing as kwargs numeric_only=True 
- [x] closes #49352 
- [x] [Tests added and passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#writing-tests) if fixing a bug or adding a new feature
- [x] All [code checks passed](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#pre-commit).
- [x] Added [type annotations](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/dev/development/contributing_codebase.html#type-hints) to new arguments/methods/functions.
- [x] Added an entry in the latest `doc/source/whatsnew/vX.X.X.rst` file if fixing a bug or adding a new feature.

@rhshadrach can you please have a look at the PR since v1.5.2 will be released. this doesn't have any tests I wasn't sure if they are covered by default. Will add them. Thanks for your response. To check in advance, is the appropriate location to add the test in the script below?:

`pandas/tests/apply/test_frame_apply.py` > To check in advance, is the appropriate location to add the test in the script below?:
> 
> `pandas/tests/apply/test_frame_apply.py`

Yes - that's correct. If it were better documented that passing the string alias of the DataFrame methods accepts the associated keyword arguments then I supposed it makes sense to support this, especially if the user passes multiple strings aliases into agg. Thanks @mroeschke - @thlautenschlaeger can you add a description of whats happening here to the notes section of agg and apply. > Thanks @mroeschke - @thlautenschlaeger can you add a description of whats happening here to the notes section of agg and apply.

@rhshadrach  Added the description to that section.  Also added an example to the doc for agg. Hope everything is alright now. > @rhshadrach I'm assuming the other kwargs like `skipna` and `min_periods` have the same issue here in `agg`, but those don't need to be addressed in 1.5.x since those don't affect the `FutureWarning`?

Correct. While I do think things like skipna should work, they are not part of the regression due to the numeric_only changes. Thanks for your reviews @mroeschke @rhshadrach 
I will go through your comments and integrate the change requests. This pull request is stale because it has been open for thirty days with no activity. Please [update](https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/development/contributing.html#updating-your-pull-request) and respond to this comment if you're still interested in working on this. @thlautenschlaeger - friendly ping. Are you interested in continuing?  Thanks for the pull request, but it appears to have gone stale. If interested in continuing, please merge in the main branch, address any review comments and/or failing tests, and we can reopen.