wp_approve_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining safety (e.g., reversibility), permissions, or idempotency. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It earns its place but could be expanded slightly (e.g., noting status change) without losing conciseness.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on idempotency, permissions, or result confirmation, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'site' and 'id'. The description adds no extra meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 'Approves a pending comment' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like wp_spam_comment and wp_delete_comment, but does not specify the outcome (e.g., status change to 'approved').

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other comment-related tools (e.g., wp_update_comment, wp_spam_comment). The description lacks usage context or alternatives.

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