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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the edit-lock check, that strippable changes are refused, that a revision is saved, that an undo token is returned, and that a human approval gate blocks any site change. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the action, followed by behavior and approval flow. The site parenthetical is minor clutter but nothing is expendable.

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, approval-gated block mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers safety, side effects, and the returned undo token. Slightly more on how the undo token is consumed would make it 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%, so id, path, site_id and expected_name are all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that the path targets a block including its inner blocks; it adds no format or guard-usage detail beyond the schema.

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 plus scope: 'Delete the block at path, with its inner blocks.' That clearly separates it from mutate-in-place siblings like wp_replace_block or wp_update_block_attributes, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives useful preconditions (edit lock is checked, changes WordPress would strip for your account are refused, a person must approve through Royally), but it never states when to choose this over sibling tools such as wp_replace_block or wp_move_block. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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