Lösche WordPress Post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the trash/permanent distinction, which is valuable, but this information is already present in the 'force' parameter's schema description ('Endgültig löschen statt Papierkorb'). The description fails to disclose other important behaviors like irreversibility of permanent deletion, effects on related data such as comments or meta, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and key modes. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core behavior (trash vs permanent) but omits context like whether the operation is reversible by default, what happens to associated data, or what the response contains. The output schema exists, which likely documents return values, so that gap is partially covered. However, given no annotations, a bit more context would be expected for a destructive operation.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'force' clearly described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it merely restates the force behavior. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is added here.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and resource (WordPress post), with a parenthetical that distinguishes two deletion modes: moving to trash or permanent deletion. This is a specific verb+resource pair that aligns with the tool's name and separates it from tools targeting other entity types like products or users.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to delete a WordPress post) but provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, permission requirements, or compare with other deletion tools in the sibling list. Usage context is only inferred from the purpose.

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