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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: the 30-day retention window, the recovery path via content_undo, the drafts-only-mode restriction, and the scope boundary ('Nothing else is deleted through a connection'). That is meaningful consequence disclosure for an irreversible-feeling action.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary WordPress action before the Shopify variant, and no filler. It is on the long side for a single paragraph but essentially every clause carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what happens after the call (recoverable via content_undo for 30 days) and where the tool does not apply. The only real gap is the required id parameter's semantics, which is left entirely to the caller to infer.

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 67% and already documents site (name or address) and type (default post). The description adds context about which item classes are valid (post, page, URL redirect) but never explains the required id parameter — its format, whether it is a numeric ID or a URL for redirects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move a post, page or other item ... to its trash') and extends it precisely to a second case ('remove a URL redirect of a Shopify store'). It distinguishes itself from content_undo by naming the inverse relationship, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit mode conditions ('In drafts-only mode this works for drafts; removing something live needs the publish-too mode') and an explicit when-not ('Shopify has no trash, so take a product or page off the store by setting its status to draft or archived'). Alternatives and exclusions are both covered.

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