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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses the refuse-and-do-nothing failure mode, the undo token returned in either path, that recreation gets a new id, and that the Royally approval workflow means nothing changes on the site until a human approves. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the default behavior and the failure mode before the force variant, and every clause carries distinct information. The undo-token parenthetical is slightly dense but still earns its place; overall it is a tight four sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the reply shape (undo token, new id on recreation) and the approval gate. The only gap is that the required id is never described as a page identifier, which an agent must infer from the tool name and site context.

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?

The schema already documents force and site_id (67% coverage), and the description adds real semantic value by tying force to the trash-disabled and already-trashed refusal cases. The required id parameter is left undescribed in both places, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 ('Delete page') and immediately clarifies the default soft-delete path, which disambiguates from a raw hard delete. It does not name the sibling it is not (wp_delete_post, wp_delete_media), which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 conditional guidance: omit force to trash, force: true to delete permanently, and explains precisely when the call is refused (already trashed or trash disabled). It stops short of pointing at an alternative tool for recovering or retrying, so it lacks explicit 'use X instead' routing.

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