wordpress_delete_commentDelete or trash a WordPress comment by its ID. Set force to true for permanent removal or false to move it to trash.
Delete or trash a WordPress comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | If true, permanently delete. If false, move to trash. | |
| comment_id | Yes | Comment ID to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / comment_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Comment ID to delete"Input schema / properties / comment_id / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / force / descriptionAdded value: +"If true, permanently delete. If false, move to trash."v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the action. It omits permissions required, whether the operation is reversible in practice, and any side effects on associated data. The schema's force description covers permanent vs trash, but the description adds no safety context.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete tool.
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?
An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return values and inputs are handled elsewhere. The description nonetheless leaves gaps in usage routing and safety context that matter for a destructive operation with no annotations. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both comment_id and force are fully documented. The description's 'delete or trash' phrasing loosely maps to the force parameter but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names a specific verb (delete/trash) and resource (WordPress comment), making the operation immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as wordpress_delete_post or wordpress_moderate_comment, so it falls short of the top mark.
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?
No guidance on when to choose deletion versus trashing beyond the schema flag, nor when to use this instead of wordpress_moderate_comment. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.