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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the action is queued through Royally and requires human approval, so nothing on the site changes immediately. That materially reframes how an agent should treat a 'destructive' call. It stops short of describing the result of the pending request.

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 action is front-loaded in the first four words, followed by prerequisites and then the approval caveat. Only the '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' parenthetical is filler, but it is short.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization requirements, and the asynchronous approval model well. The remaining gap is return/error behavior for an invalid comment_id or insufficient capability.

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 50%: site_id is documented by its enum description, but comment_id has no description anywhere. The prose says nothing about parameters, so an agent gets no guidance on what a valid comment_id looks like or how to obtain one (e.g., via wp_get_comments).

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 precise verb+resource ('Mark a comment as spam'), a distinct WordPress operation separable from siblings like wp_trash_comment, wp_delete_comment, and wp_approve_comment 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?

It gives the prerequisites (moderate_comments capability plus edit rights on the comment's post), which is useful context, but it never says when to choose this over trash_comment or delete_comment, nor what happens if the caller lacks the capability.

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