wordpress_update_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description lacks critical behavioral details: required permissions, error handling when the comment_id doesn't exist, idempotency guarantees, or whether partial updates are supported. It omits auth requirements entirely.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. The '[UNIFIED]' tag is structural noise that doesn't aid agent understanding, but overall it avoids verbosity. 'Etc.' is a minor inefficiency that could be replaced with specific parameter names.

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 zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is insufficient. A mutation tool with this many parameters requires more disclosure about side effects, return values, and field validation rules to be complete. The current description barely scratches the surface.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing updatable fields ('content, status, author information') which map to content, status, author_name, and author_email. However, it completely omits the semantics of required parameters 'site' and 'comment_id', leaving half the parameter set 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 core action ('Update an existing WordPress comment') and lists specific updatable fields ('content, status, author information'). The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_create_comment and wordpress_delete_comment. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value, and 'etc.' leaves the scope slightly vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. delete and recreate a comment). It fails to mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid comment_id from wordpress_list_comments or wordpress_get_comment, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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