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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds the dry_run preview affordance, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about reversibility, trashing vs permanent deletion, or permission requirements. Modest value above annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. Slightly terse for a destructive operation but nothing is wasted.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations covering reversibility, and no statement about what trashing actually does to the product (recoverable? hidden from storefront?). The description is too thin for the risk level.

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 carries its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's dry_run mention duplicates the schema's 'preview without trashing' without adding format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (trash) plus specific resource (WooCommerce product), neatly distinguished from siblings like woo_update_product (edit) and wp_trash_post (different resource). An agent can pick this out immediately.

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 dry_run preview hint gives a sliver of usage context, but there is no guidance on when to trash vs delete, or when dry_run is worth invoking. Implied usage only.

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