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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add one thing beyond structured data: the required write scope, which is useful auth context. It stops short of saying whether the delete is soft or hard, whether it cascades, or what happens on a missing ID.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries weight (operation, identifier, prerequisite scope).

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 with destructive/idempotent annotations and a fully documented schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call the tool correctly. Minor residual gaps (not-found behavior, soft vs. hard delete) are low-risk given destructiveHint is already declared.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' (uuid, 'Comment ID'). The phrase 'by ID' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (infrastructure asset comment) and narrows the operation with 'by ID', so an agent knows exactly what is affected. However, it does not acknowledge the near-identical sibling delete_asset_comment, leaving the two ambiguous to an agent that only reads descriptions.

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 only guidance is the required scope (infrastructure_asset_comments:write), which is a prerequisite rather than a when-to-use statement. There is no indication of when to delete vs. update (update_infrastructure_asset_comment) or the list/get tools, and no exclusions or error conditions.

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