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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the authorization requirement ('asset_comments:write scope'), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations. It stops short of stating that deletion is permanent/irreversible.

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 short sentences with zero filler, action front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the key to identify the target, and the required permission. Only the irreversibility/aftermath of the delete is unstated, a minor gap.

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?

Single required 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics; the description's 'by ID' confirms the identifier role. Baseline of 4 for a fully documented single-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('asset comment') and the identifier used ('by ID'). It distinguishes cleanly from the many create_/update_/get_ siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the near-identical delete_infrastructure_asset_comment.

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?

Adds a real prerequisite ('Requires asset_comments:write scope'), which tells the agent when invocation will succeed. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only partially covered.

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