wp_comments_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining that status values serve as moderation actions (e.g., 'spam', 'trash') and that content/author fields are editable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether trash is reversible), permission requirements, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Update a comment'. It efficiently packs essential information about moderation and editable fields without redundancy or excess.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It conveys the core purpose, status semantics, and editable field groups, but omits important contextual details such as whether trash deletion is permanent, how author fields interact with permissions, and what the tool returns after a successful update. More would be needed for full agent confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially by mapping the status enum values to their moderation meanings ('approved (publish), hold (pending), spam, trash') and grouping content and author fields as editable. However, it does not describe the id parameter (though its role is obvious from the name) or provide details on constraints like minLength or uri formats, which the schema alone lacks.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource 'Update a comment', clearly distinguishing this update tool from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete. It further clarifies the scope by listing moderation actions and editable fields.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Update a comment' implies modifying an existing comment, it does not state that create/delete should be used for new/removal operations, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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