mcp_clean_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a destructive bulk operation it says nothing about permanence, irreversibility, how many comments are affected, or required permissions/capabilities; 'delete' alone implies mutation but discloses no operational traits.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero padding, so it is efficient and readable. It is arguably under-specified rather than wordy, but conciseness itself is good.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. However, the absence of annotations means the destructive bulk semantics should be spelled out in the description, and they are not.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'site' (and points to list_sites). The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the 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?

States a specific verb (delete) and a specific object scope (spam and trashed comments), which is enough for an agent to understand the operation. It implicitly distinguishes itself from single-comment siblings like wp_delete_comment by naming a bulk cleanup scope, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. It is unclear whether this is preferred over wp_moderate_comments or repeated wp_delete_comment calls, or whether it targets only spam/trash or all non-approved comments.

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