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 discloses the operations (approve, spam, trash, edit content) but fails to explain side effects, reversibility of trash/spam, or permission requirements. The mutation behavior is listed but not detailed enough for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient and avoids waste, but it omits critical details that would make it more useful. It is appropriately sized for the minimum but not rich enough for complex operations.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how to select among the four listed actions, or the exact effect of each operation. For a tool with multiple possible behaviors, this is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.

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?

The schema has only one parameter (commentId) with zero description coverage. The description lists four possible actions but provides no parameter to specify which action to take or the content to edit. It does not explain how commentId alone drives the update, leaving the agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Update comment (approve, spam, trash, edit content)' which clearly identifies the resource (comment) and the action (update), listing specific operations that distinguish it from create_comment, delete_comment, and get_comments siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 list of update operations implies the tool is for any comment modification, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools for deletion or creation. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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