wordpress_create_comment

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the direct action and parameter list. It does not mention side effects, required authentication, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. Since there are no annotations to cover these aspects, the description carries the full burden and falls short—it only restates the mechanics compressed into the function name.

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 well-structured with a clear 'Args' section and a 'Returns' clause. Every sentence and parameter explanation earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 creation operation, the description covers all parameters and states the return value. However, it omits any mention of required permissions or the fact that certain fields (like author_name) are used only when creating anonymous comments. Given the presence of an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return structure, but a note about authentication or context would make it more complete.

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 description adds meaningful context to every parameter that the schema lacks. For example, 'post: Post ID to comment on' clarifies the purpose, and 'author_name: Comment author name (for anonymous comments)' explains when this field is relevant. This is especially valuable because the schema provides no descriptions, so this is the only source of semantic information.

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 'Create a new comment on a WordPress post.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of creating a comment is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordpress_update_comment, wordpress_delete_comment, and wordpress_moderate_comment.

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?

Usage is implied by the action word 'create' and the parameter list. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, so it sits at the 'implied usage' level.

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