wp_update_comment

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly naming the aspects that can be updated (content and approval status), which helps the agent understand what 'update' entails. It does not add additional caveats like permissions or reversibility, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences that cover the purpose and the main capabilities. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Update or moderate a comment') and each phrase adds value. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 is a simple update operation, the description is adequate: it states the core action, mentions the two modifiable attributes, and the schema fully documents all parameters. The annotations cover safety aspects. The absence of an output schema is fine for a mutation tool, and the description does not need to detail return values. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the schema itself provides the baseline. The description adds the semantic grouping of 'content' and 'approval status', linking the parameters to real-world concepts, but does not add syntax details beyond what the schema already has. The baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('comment'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_create_comment and wp_delete_comment by focusing on updating an existing comment. It also adds the key actions (change content or approval status), making its role 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to update or moderate an existing comment) and clarifies the two main usage modes (content change or status change). It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings that create, list, or delete comments.

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