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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so permanence is partly covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that associated stats and activity are destroyed too, which the annotation does not convey. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the deletion is recoverable beyond the phrase 'for good'.

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 filler, and the primary destructive action is front-loaded before the safer alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers permanence, side effects on stats/activity, and the softer alternative. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note whether the ruleId must exist or what happens on a bad id.

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 schema distinguishes ruleId (from list_comment_dm_rules) and the optional workspace slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so this is the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Comment to DM rule'), and immediately contrasts with its sibling update_comment_dm_rule. An agent can distinguish this from update/delete_dm_automation without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To stop it for a while instead, use update_comment_dm_rule with active false.' This is a textbook when-not routing instruction.

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