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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the action is queued for human approval in Royally and nothing on the site changes until then — a non-obvious gate an agent must know about before invoking.

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 compact sentences with the resource and the approval constraint front-loaded. The inline site parenthetical is slightly noisy since site_id is already constrained by enum, but nothing is bloated.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval gate but leaves the `force` semantics and the return/confirmation behavior unexplained. Enough to avoid a misfire, not enough to call it fully specified.

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 only 33%: site_id is described via its enum, but `id` and `force` are undocumented. The description never explains that `id` is the comment identifier or that `force` likely controls permanent deletion versus trashing — a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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 ("Delete a comment") and names the target site. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wp_trash_comment or wp_spam_comment, so an agent must infer why a hard delete is chosen over trashing or spamming.

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 says nothing about when to prefer this over wp_trash_comment or wp_spam_comment, nor does it state prerequisites (capabilities, whether the comment must exist). Only the approval-workflow sentence hints at how the call behaves, not when to choose it.

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