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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: a 30-day restorability window for trashing, that permanent:true is forever, the confirm gate, and that the action hits the user's live site. It doesn't cover side effects such as what happens to media, comments, or taxonomy terms on the deleted item.

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?

One tightly packed sentence after the [WRITE — removes content] tag, with the most consequential facts (trash vs permanent, confirm required) front-loaded. 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, high-stakes write tool with full schema coverage, the description covers mode, reversibility, and the confirmation gate. Return behavior (e.g. whether the trashed record id is echoed back) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given there's no output schema.

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% and each parameter already has its own description, so the description mostly restates permanent:true and confirm:true rather than adding new semantics. The only marginal addition is the 30-day recovery window, which contextualizes permanent. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (delete / move to trash) plus resource (post or page), and it explicitly separates the two modes: reversible trash versus permanent deletion. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like wordpress_update_post or wordpress_publish without opening a 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?

Clear conditions are given: use trash by default, pass permanent:true for irreversible removal, and confirm:true is mandatory. What's missing is explicit routing against siblings (e.g. when to prefer wordpress_update_post to unpublish rather than delete), so it stops short of a 5.

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