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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying that the deletion is soft/recoverable and that a dry_run preview is available, which materially changes how an agent should reason about the risk.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the recoverability caveat and the preview option. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no padding.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering destructiveness, the description supplies the key missing behavioral facts (reversibility, dry_run). It does not address permissions, what happens when the page is already trashed, or the shape of the result, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, dry_run, and site_id are already fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description echoes dry_run's preview purpose but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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 WordPress page to trash") and explicitly distinguishes the operation from permanent deletion, so the agent understands the semantic effect. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling wp_trash_post, which performs the same action on a different post type.

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 gives one actionable usage hint — "Use dry_run=true to preview" — which is genuine guidance for a mutating tool. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like wp_trash_post or wp_update_page, or when trashing is inappropriate, so usage is only implied.

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