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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint true), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: default trash behavior, refusal conditions when trashing is impossible, and the Royally approval workflow that prevents any site change until a person approves. This is substantial added value.

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 and efficient, covering key behaviors in a few sentences. The site parenthetical slightly duplicates the schema's site_id enum, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the richness of annotations, the description provides all necessary context: trash vs permanent deletion, refusal scenarios, site scope, and approval workflow. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 67%, with the id parameter lacking any description. The description adds meaningful semantics for the force parameter (default behavior, refusal conditions), but does not compensate for the undocumented id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a post of any post type") and clarifies the default trash behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wp_delete_page, but the post focus is clear.

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 explains the effect of the force parameter (trash vs permanent) but does not name alternative tools or state explicitly when to choose this tool over siblings. Usage is implied through parameter consequences rather than direct guidance.

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