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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses what gets destroyed (trash vs. irreversible), the concrete error payloads returned for bad IDs and post types, and the crucial non-idempotency caveat that wp_timeout/wp_unreachable leaves the outcome unknown. That last point is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before retrying a destructive call.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive distinction, then parameter notes, then error handling — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is densely packed, nearly telegraphic, which is efficient but slightly hurts readability for an agent parsing prose.

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 an output schema already present, this covers the essential gaps: reversibility, ID formats, error codes, and retry safety. Minor omissions remain, such as required WordPress capability/permission level and what happens to media or child pages of a deleted post.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: force semantics with default, post_id numeric vs. 'theme//slug' template form, post_type referencing wp_update_post's allowed values, and workspace optionality when only one workspace exists. Every one of the four parameters gets meaning not present 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 first clause 'WordPress-Beitrag/Seite löschen' gives a specific verb (delete) plus the two resource types it operates on, immediately separating it from wp_create_post/wp_update_post and from wp_delete_media. It additionally clarifies it handles templates via the 'theme//slug' ID form, which no sibling does.

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?

It clearly states the two modes of use: default force=False sends to trash, force=True deletes permanently, which is the key when-to-use decision for an agent. It also gives recovery guidance for ambiguous timeout errors ('erst nachsehen, nicht blind wiederholen'). It stops short of naming when to prefer wp_update_post (e.g. status change to draft) over deletion.

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