wordpress_update_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('Update') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions (e.g., admin rights), whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The list of actions (approve, spam, etc.) hints at functionality but lacks operational context like how to specify which action to perform.

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 extremely concise—a single parenthetical phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying update actions without redundancy. No structural issues exist given its brevity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral expectations (e.g., side effects, error handling), and output format. The action list is helpful but insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'commentId' parameter (e.g., numeric ID from WordPress), how to obtain it, or how it relates to the listed actions. With 1 undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'comment', with specific actions listed (approve, spam, trash, edit content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wordpress_create_comment' and 'wordpress_delete_comment' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'wordpress_update_post' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing comment ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot update non-existent comments), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_comments' for retrieval. The agent must infer usage from the action list alone.

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