wp_update_comment_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the core behavior—changing a comment's status—and clarifies 'hold' as 'unapprove,' but it does not mention side effects such as visibility changes, permission requirements, or whether trashing is reversible. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence delivers the action and all valid status values with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key information is immediately visible.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description combined with the fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks information about return values or edge cases, but nothing essential to passing the correct id and choosing a valid status is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters clearly: 'id' is a comment ID and 'status' is one of the four allowed values. The description adds only the parenthetical clarification for 'hold (unapprove),' which provides minimal extra value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Change a comment status') and enumerates the exact allowed states: approve, hold, spam, or trash. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like wp_delete_comment, wp_reply_comment, and wp_get_comment because it names the mutation being performed.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a comment's moderation status needs to be changed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as wp_delete_comment or wp_reply_comment, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear from the wording but not explicitly guided.

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