wordpress_update_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is an update (implying mutation) but does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or the effect of leaving optional parameters null (e.g., whether null means no change). It also does not describe any rate limits or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args with each parameter described, and a Returns line. There is no wasted text. It adheres to a clear and scannable format that effectively front-loads the action.

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's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the lack of annotations and output schema details, the description provides only basic context. It mentions what parameters do and that the return is updated comment details, but it misses important clarifications like how null values affect the update, whether all parameters are optional aside from comment_id, and any potential interactions with comment moderation workflow. It is adequate but leaves ambiguities.

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 meaning to parameters by explicitly listing the allowed values for status ('approved', 'hold', 'spam', 'trash') and describing content as 'New comment content'. This goes beyond the schema, which only defines types and nullability. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of null for these optional fields (whether null means 'no change'), and the schema coverage is 0% per the signal, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 updates an existing WordPress comment, specifying the resource (comment) and action (update). It lists the parameters involved, indicating what can be changed. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'wordpress_moderate_comment', which might also alter comment status, so differentiation is weak.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wordpress_moderate_comment or wordpress_create_comment. It only states the basic action without any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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