wordpress_delete_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the dual behavior (trash vs. permanent deletion), which implies the recoverability of trashed items. However, it omits other critical behavioral context such as what happens to child/replies when a comment is deleted, whether the operation can be undone, or error conditions when the comment_id doesn't exist.

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 appropriately concise at two sentences. The information is front-loaded with the action in the first sentence and behavioral clarification in the second. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is metadata cruft but minimal. No extraneous text is present.

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 destructive operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the critical behavioral distinction between trashing and permanent deletion. However, given the 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations, it should explicitly document the required parameters (site, comment_id) and ideally warn about the irreversibility of force=true deletions.

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%, requiring the description to compensate significantly. While the text conceptually explains the 'force' parameter's behavior (permanent vs. trash), it fails to document the 'site' parameter (WordPress site identifier) or 'comment_id' parameter (which comment to target), leaving two-thirds of the parameters undocumented.

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 action (delete/trash) and resource (WordPress comment), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like wordpress_update_comment or wordpress_get_comment by specifying the destructive/recovery modes. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure the purpose.

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 usage guidelines by distinguishing between permanent deletion and moving to trash, suggesting when to use each mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., updating comment status vs. deletion) or prerequisites like required permissions.

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