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

Annotations already declare destructiveness, non-idempotency, and open-world behavior, but the description adds important context: the action is recoverable through Trash, the homepage is refused, confirm must be true, and writes must be enabled. This materially improves the agent's understanding of side effects and preconditions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and constraints in four short, information-dense sentences. Every clause earns its place by covering recoverability, refusal condition, confirmation, and gating.

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 write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key behavioral facts: recoverable trash, homepage refusal, confirm requirement, and write gating. It could be slightly more explicit about how writes are enabled, but overall it is sufficient.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description only repeats that confirm=true is required, adding little semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Trash a page or post,' with the scope clarified as recoverable via Trash. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as wp_set_page_status or wp_update_page.

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?

It provides operational conditions like 'Pass confirm=true' and an exclusion ('Refused for the homepage'), but it does not say when to choose this tool versus alternatives for trashing or updating page status. Usage is implied by the deletion context rather than explicitly guided.

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