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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/no-readOnly; the description adds material facts beyond them: edit history is destroyed too, permissions required, a missing comment returns not-found instead of a false success, and the deletion is audit-logged without comment content. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs before a destructive 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?

Five tight clauses, each adding new information — target, permissions, error semantics, route, audit behavior, return shape — with the destructive scope front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the identifier.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({id, kind, number, deleted: true}), the failure mode, audit behavior, and the upstream route. Only the nested thread parameter's role is left unstated.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the load; the description reinforces only that deletion is keyed by comment id. The nested `thread` object (kind/number) is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a comment on an issue or pull request') plus scope ('with its edit history') and the underlying route DELETE /api/v3/repos/:o/:r/issues/comments/:id. It doesn't name the sibling it is distinguished from (gluecron_edit_comment), but the destructive intent is unambiguous.

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?

Provides an authorization precondition ('Its author or a repository writer only') and an error contract for missing comments, which helps an agent decide whether the call can succeed. However it never states when to prefer this over gluecron_edit_comment or what to do instead when authorization fails.

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