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

Although annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, the description adds substantial context beyond them: trash behavior, comment hiding, restore path, refusal cases, permanent deletion side effects (revisions, comments, custom fields, term assignments), irreversibility, permission requirement, return shape, not-found behavior, and bridge forwarding. This is unusually complete for a destructive mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: it states the core action and default trash behavior first, then force deletion, side effects, permissions, and return behavior. Every sentence adds decision-relevant detail for a destructive operation, with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: default versus permanent behavior, irreversible effects, refusal conditions, permissions, return value, error behavior, and the relevant media alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to call safely and correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds operational meaning to force=true by explaining permanent deletion, side effects, and refusal behavior, and it explains that an unknown id returns a not-found error, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the clear resource 'post, page or entry of any post type,' and explicitly distinguishes media deletion by pointing to wp_delete_media. An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings such as wp_update_post and wp_delete_media from the text alone.

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 gives explicit when-to-use behavior: default trash, permanent deletion only with force=true, restoration via wp_update_post, and refusal conditions for already-trashed entries, media files, or sites without trash. It also names the correct alternative tool for media files, making selection unambiguous.

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