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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the two-phase preview/confirm gate, the requestId reuse for outcome recovery, and the status-based completion condition. It still doesn't state whether the comment is permanently destroyed or recoverable, which matters for a destructive action.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler prose, but several clauses are telegraphic to the point of ambiguity ("Claim live only when status is active") and the trailing "Fields: soclo://tools/..." URI is low-value noise for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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, nested-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the approval workflow adequately but omits the destructive semantics (permanence of the deletion) and leaves several parameters unexplained. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to be confident about consequences.

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 50%, and the description reinforces the two subtlest fields (confirm and requestId) by explaining why the same requestId must be reused. It says nothing about accountId, adAccountId, platform, or why the nested parameters object carries since/until for a comment deletion, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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 and resource ("Delete an ad comment"), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never differentiates from the closely related sibling soclo_ads_hide_ad_comment, so an agent must infer the delete-vs-hide distinction from the name alone.

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 concrete procedural guidance: preview first, then call with owner-approved confirm:true reusing the same requestId, and only treat the claim as live when status is active. It does not say when to prefer this over hide_ad_comment, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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