wp_reply_comment

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a meaningful detail by specifying that the reply is authored as the site administrator, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the reply is immediately public, whether notifications are triggered, or whether the parent comment status is affected.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the core action and actor. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 low-complexity tool with fully described required parameters, this is nearly sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, a brief note on the expected result (e.g., new comment ID) or a prerequisite like 'the parent comment must exist' would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters completely with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the admin actor context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Reply to a comment') and adds the actor ('as the site administrator'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling comment tools like wp_update_comment_status, wp_get_comment, wp_delete_comment, and wp_list_comments.

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 action is self-evident: use it when an administrator needs to reply to a comment. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites such as the parent comment existing or the post allowing comments.

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