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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds the crucial nuance that this is a reversible soft delete ('It can be restored from the trash'), which materially changes how an agent should weigh the risk. It doesn't mention permission requirements or behavior on an already-trashed or invalid ID, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste; the scope (post types covered) comes first and the reversibility note second, which is the right order for an agent assessing risk.

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 one-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and reversibility, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only auth/permission expectations and failure behavior.

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 0% for the single ID parameter, and the description only says 'by ID', which implies the post identifier but adds no format, type, or validity constraints. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but a 3 is the fair ceiling.

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 item of another post type to the trash') and clarifies the soft-delete semantics, which distinguishes it meaningfully from wp_update_post despite the 'delete' name. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 use case (removing content from the site) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over wp_update_post with a status change, or over wp_alter_post. Usage is inferable but never stated.

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