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

Beyond annotations (which only declare destructive/idempotent/open-world flags), the description discloses that the deletion is recoverable via WordPress Trash, that template conditions are cleared as a side effect, that confirm=true is mandatory, and that writes must be enabled. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the recoverability and side-effect facts are in the first sentence where they matter most. The trailing 'Writes-gated, Xyle Connector v0.6.0+' is terse but earns its place as a compatibility/prerequisite note.

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 3-required-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers recoverability, side effects, the confirm gate, and write-gating prerequisites. It omits any hint of the response shape or failure modes, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 every parameter (site_id, template_id, confirm) already carries a description. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Trash a template') and immediately distinguishes the operation from a hard delete by noting it is recoverable via Trash. The note that it 'clears its conditions first so it stops rendering' further separates it from sibling templates tools like wp_set_template_status and wp_update_template.

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?

Gives clear execution context: pass confirm=true, writes must be enabled, connector version requirement. It stops short of naming when to prefer an alternative (e.g. wp_set_template_status for disabling without deletion), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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