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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description need not restate that deletion is permanent. It adds useful context by stating the required write scope. It does not disclose whether deletion cascades or is recoverable, but with annotations covering the destructive/idempotent traits this is an adequate 3.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action before the scope prerequisite. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering safety traits and no output schema required, the definition covers the action, the identifier, and the auth prerequisite. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor room for differentiation from sibling delete tools.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as the 'Asset comment ID'. The description adds only 'by ID', which restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, 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 and resource ('Delete an asset comment') plus the identifier basis ('by ID'), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like delete_infrastructure_asset_comment and delete_asset. It does not, however, explicitly call out those near-neighbors, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 conveys the implied use case (removing a specific comment) and names a prerequisite ('Requires asset_comments:write scope'), which helps an agent confirm it can call the tool. It offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, such as distinguishing it from update_asset_comment or the list/get counterparts.

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