trash_content

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: all locales are unpublished simultaneously, content disappears from delivery, the operation is recoverable via restore_content (returning drafts that must be republished), and the response shape is {trashed: <number>}. This reconciles the destructiveHint=false annotation, which would otherwise read as odd for a trash operation, by explaining the recoverability.

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?

Three tight sentences, no filler. The destructive scope is front-loaded, then recovery, then the routing hint to unpublish — a sensible priority order for a destructive operation.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers everything: side effects on all locales, delivery impact, reversibility, the return value shape, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or to warn the user is absent.

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%, so both parameters (site, documentId) are already fully documented in the schema, including the multisite fallback and where documentId comes from. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 ('move to trash') plus the exact scope ('a content item AND its whole page subtree'), which is a stronger and more precise statement than the tool name alone. It also separates itself from the near-siblings unpublish and restore_content by name, so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-not and the alternative that covers it: 'To only take it off the live site, use unpublish instead.' It also names the recovery path (restore_content) and the condition for using it, so the agent knows this is reversible rather than terminal.

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