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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: the ownership-based authorization rule and the confirm gate that makes the call a preview by default — a genuinely non-obvious safety behavior for a destructive 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the destructive action and the confirm requirement both front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: action, permission scope, and the preview default are all stated. It stops short of covering failure modes (nonexistent/already-deleted comment) or whether replies to the comment are affected.

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 50%: 'confirm' is fully documented in the schema, while 'commentId' carries no description. The description restates the confirm semantics (already in the schema) and adds nothing about what a comment ID is or where to obtain it, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for this coverage level.

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?

Specific verb ('Deletes') plus resource ('a comment'), and it goes further by stating the authorization scope in parentheses: the user's own comments or any on a board the user owns. This distinguishes it from edit_comment and delete_task-style siblings without opening a 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?

The description clarifies who may delete what, which is a real usage constraint, but it never names an alternative (edit_comment, react_to_comment, delete_task) or states when deletion is preferable to editing. Usage is implied by the permission scope rather than explicitly guided.

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