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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, is authorization-gated, and without confirm:true only a preview is returned. It omits whether cascading effects occur (e.g., replies) or whether the action is recoverable.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the confirm requirement last. 'Its author and the project owner can.' is telegraphically clipped but not wasteful; nothing extraneous is included.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: permanence, permission scope, and the confirm-preview mechanism. Only edge cases such as recovery or side effects on dependent data are left unstated.

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 documents both parameters, and the description's confirm sentence largely restates the schema's own text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra syntax or edge-case detail.

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+resource ('Permanently deletes a page comment') that identifies the target object precisely. It implicitly separates itself from delete_comment/delete_client_comment by naming the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 two concrete prerequisites: who is permitted ('Its author and the project owner can') and the required confirm:true flag with the preview fallback. It does not state when to prefer this over edit_page_comment or the other delete variants, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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