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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversibility warning 'No se puede deshacer' reinforces rather than duplicates. The genuine added value is the authorization rule (author/key owner only) and the id provenance, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then permission, then id source, then irreversibility. Every sentence adds a distinct fact with no repetition.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, authorization, id provenance and irreversibility — everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only a hint about the response (success confirmation vs error on non-author) is missing.

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 0% and the single parameter is bare ('commentId': string), so the description must compensate — and it does by telling the agent to obtain the id from list_comments. It stops short of any format or example, which keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ('Borra un comentario'), which unambiguously separates it from add_comment and update_comment among the siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the delete semantics leave no real ambiguity.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: only the author (or the owner of the key) may delete, and the commentId must come from list_comments. It does not spell out when to prefer update_comment over deletion, but the operational context an agent needs before calling is present.

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