WordPress: Delete navigation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds useful scope context (Site Editor records only), but 'Delete or trash' introduces a mode ambiguity it never resolves – it never says what puts the record in trash versus removing it permanently, nor whether the operation is recoverable.

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 with the action and scope front-loaded and no padding sentences. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is internal tagging that costs a few tokens without helping an agent decide, which keeps it from a 5.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers resource identity and scope adequately and annotations handle the safety signal. It is still incomplete on the one thing that matters most here – the difference between trashing and permanently deleting, which is exactly the decision the force parameter encodes.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and mostly fails it. 'Trash' faintly gestures at the 'force' parameter, but site, navigation_id and force are never explained, and the default-vs-permanent behavior tied to force is left entirely implicit.

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+resource ('Delete or trash a wp_navigation post') and parenthetically identifies what that resource is ('block-theme menu'). It also draws a boundary against classic menus, so an agent can tell it apart from the other delete_* siblings, though it doesn't name an alternative tool.

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?

'Use this for Site Editor navigation records; classic menus remain separate' supplies explicit scope and one exclusion. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over wordpress_update_navigation or when a permanent delete is warranted, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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