wp_moderate_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'confirm required for spam/trash in safe mode' caveat, but this merely repeats the schema's confirm parameter description. It does not explain side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens in non-safe mode.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler. The enum values and the confirm caveat are both essential and efficiently presented.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description leaves ambiguity around 'safe mode,' such as when it is active or what response to expect. Given no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context about the tool's behavior and safe mode semantics would make it 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 the schema already fully documents id, status, and confirm. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond restating the confirm requirement already present in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Moderate a comment' and enumerates the exact actions ('approve, hold, spam, or trash'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like wp_reply_to_comment, which is about replying rather than changing moderation status.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wp_reply_to_comment or wp_list_comments. It does not state exclusions or mention a sibling tool that handles different comment operations.

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