wp_moderate_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the default dry_run=true (writes nothing), the need to pass dry_run=false to apply, the verification against site-reported status, the transport requirement, and the prod safety flag. It also explains the behavioral effect of each status (publish, return to queue, teach spam filters, recoverable trash). No contradictions; all critical behavioral traits are 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then expands into essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: allowed statuses, effects, comment_id source, dry_run default, prod safety, transport requirement. No fluff, well-structured, and appropriately detailed for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (moderation with dry-run safety, prod restrictions, transport dependency) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary information for correct invocation: status vocabulary, default behavior, how to apply changes, safety flags, and where to obtain the comment ID. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it properly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains status values (with explicit allowed strings and rejected examples), dry_run default and behavior, comment_id source (wp_list_comments), and allow_prod requirement. It does not explicitly describe the 'install' parameter, but it is a common site identifier across sibling tools and likely inferred. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema for 4 of 5 parameters, making it quite helpful.

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 action ('Set one comment's moderation status') and resource (a comment), and enumerates the exact statuses allowed. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like wp_delete_comment (which permanently removes) and wp_list_comments (which lists) by focusing on moderation actions. The verb+resource is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to moderate a single comment, with statuses explained. It also gives operational guidance (requires REST transport, prod writes need allow_prod=true, dry_run default). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for using a different tool (e.g., when to choose wp_delete_comment over trash), though the recoverable nature of trash is implied. Missing explicit exclusions, but usage context is solid.

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