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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: irreversibility, platform-specific ownership restrictions, and unavailability in an unclaimed sandbox. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what happens when deleting a non-owned comment) or the response, keeping it at 4.

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?

Four dense sentences, no waste, with the destructive nature and platform scoping front-loaded. Every clause carries actionable information (per-platform rules, undo warning, sandbox caveat).

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 destructive 4-param tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential risks (irreversible, platform-limited, sandbox-restricted). The remaining gap is channel_id semantics and error behavior, which are minor but real.

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 only 25%, and only workspace_id is documented (via list_workspaces). The description clarifies what a 'post' or 'comment' means per platform, which indirectly helps post_id/comment_id, but channel_id and comment_id semantics are left entirely unstated in both schema and description.

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 (deletes) and resource (a comment), and immediately scopes it per platform (Instagram/Facebook any comment, YouTube/Bluesky/Mastodon own only). It even distinguishes itself from the sibling hide_comment by naming it as the alternative for non-owned YouTube comments.

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?

Gives explicit per-platform eligibility rules and routes the agent to hide_comment when the comment isn't owned. The sandbox exclusion is a clear when-not condition, leaving little to inference.

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