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

Annotations already cover the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower, but it adds nothing: no statement about what approval status values mean, whether an unapproved comment is publicly visible, or whether duplicate comments are blocked. For a write tool with an open-world hint, that is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence spends its space on required/optional restatement rather than information the schema doesn't already contain.

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?

A 6-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain approval semantics, author-field defaults, and the return shape. None of that is present, so an agent would have to guess at the most consequential parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only restates which two parameters are required (already declared in the schema's required array) and loosely labels the others; it never explains the valid values for comment_approved (a string, likely '0'/'1'/'hold') or format expectations for email/URL.

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 ("Add a comment to a post"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from siblings like wp_update_comment or wp_get_comments, so the agent gets no help choosing among the comment-related tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus wp_update_comment (for editing existing comments) or wp_create_note. No prerequisites are stated, such as needing an existing post_id or whether the comment will be held for moderation.

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