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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the status-change action and the four statuses, but it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects beyond status change, or reversibility beyond what the annotations imply. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple mutation tool, though it omits useful context that could be included without bloat.

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 tool's low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and annotations that cover the safety profile, the description is minimally complete for invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps for an agent that needs to decide when and why to call it versus alternatives.

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 the schema already documents id, status, and site_id. The description lists the same status values that are in the enum and adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Moderate a comment by changing its status.' It lists the four possible status values, so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like wp_reply_comment or wp_list_comments, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage through the verb 'Moderate,' which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and sibling comment tools.

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