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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real information: unsupported tags are stripped, and the comment does not go live until a human approves it in Royally — a non-obvious moderation side effect an agent must know before calling.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the HTML-stripping and moderation behaviors in descending order of importance. The inline "(site: demo.royalplugins.com)" parenthetical interrupts the flow and duplicates what the schema's site_id enum already states.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the essential behavioral facts (moderation queue, HTML sanitization) are covered. However, nothing says what the call returns or how an agent should track a pending comment afterwards, which matters for a workflow that is explicitly not immediate.

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 coverage is 60%; author, author_email and site_id are well documented in the schema itself. The description compensates for the undocumented `content` parameter by spelling out the HTML tag policy, but says nothing about `post_id` or the significance of required vs optional fields, so it is at the baseline rather than above it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a comment") and adds concrete scope: permitted HTML tags and the Royally approval gate. It is distinguishable from siblings like wp_approve_comment or wp_get_comments, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 Royally sentence implies this is a staged/submitted comment rather than a live one, which shapes when an agent would choose it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to siblings such as wp_approve_comment (which presumably completes the workflow).

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