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 structurally. The description adds a genuinely new fact beyond the annotations: the required work_order_comments:write scope, which an agent needs before attempting the call.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the action and identifier front-loaded and the permission requirement second. Nothing here is redundant or misplaced.

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 no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential facts: what it removes, how it is targeted, safety profile, and the required scope. It stops short of noting any cascade effects (e.g., whether replies or attachments tied to the comment are affected), which would be the last piece an agent might want.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented as a UUID with a regex pattern in the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that, 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 (Delete) and resource (work order comment) plus the identifying key (by ID). This cleanly separates it from delete_work_order, delete_work_order_schedule, and update_work_order_comment without needing to open any schema.

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 states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites beyond the scope string, and never mentions the alternative of editing the comment via update_work_order_comment. The agent must infer that this is the removal path for an existing comment.

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