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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: owner-only authorization, immediate effect on the client page, the confirm=true preview mechanic, and the scope covering both client comments and team answers. Nothing about consequences is left implicit.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no waste, front-loading the action and permanence, then scope, then authorization and the confirm gate. The parenthetical examples earn their space by clarifying intent.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: authorization requirement, confirmation semantics, side effects, and scope. No meaningful gap remains given that annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameters.

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%, and the schema itself documents confirm's preview behavior and commentId. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (permanently removes), resource (one comment), and scope (task conversation on the client portal), which distinguishes it from sibling delete_comment and delete_page_comment. An agent can tell which comment surface this targets without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context (spam, a mistake), a prerequisite (only the project owner), and the confirm/preview flow. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., delete_comment for internal comments), so it stops short of full when-vs-alternative routing.

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