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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the required scope ('project_comments:write'), which is valuable auth context not present in annotations. It doesn't explain what happens to related data (e.g., replies/threads) or whether deletion is permanent, but with annotations covering safety profile, this is above average.

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 followed by the scope requirement. Zero waste.

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?

Given one required parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description is adequate but minimal. It could mention irreversibility or cascade effects, but for a simple delete tool it meets the minimum viable bar.

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%, so the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as a UUID. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Delete a project comment by ID.' The tool name, title, and description all align precisely. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_project vs delete_project_document), but the resource name is specific enough to distinguish it.

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 implies when to use it (to delete a project comment) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like update_project_comment or list_project_comments. No mention of preconditions or side effects beyond the scope requirement.

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