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. The description usefully adds the required write scope, but says nothing about whether the deletion is permanent, recoverable, or cascades to related records.

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 no filler: the action is front-loaded and the authorization prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent what it needs to call it correctly. The missing piece is any note on permanence or post-delete side effects.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Comment ID'). The 'by ID' phrase in the description mirrors the schema without adding format or sourcing detail, so 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 (delete) and resource (infrastructure asset comment), scoped by ID, which is enough to separate it from close siblings like delete_asset_comment and delete_infrastructure_asset. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist (e.g., update_infrastructure_asset_comment for modifications). The only usage-adjacent content is a scope prerequisite, which is a requirement rather than a routing rule.

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