Deletes a comment - it stops appearing anywhere except the issue's audit history, and this cannot be undone through this API. Only the comment's own author can delete it - check canManage in list_issue_comments before calling. To just change its text instead, use edit_comment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commentId | Yes | The comment's id, from list_issue_comments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / commentId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The comment's id, from get_issue's comment list."New value: +"The comment's id, from list_issue_comments."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the permanent effect (cannot be undone), the visibility change (stops appearing except in audit history), and the author-only permission constraint. This is comprehensive for a destructive operation and contradicts nothing.
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?
Three tight sentences front-load the core action, then add irreversibility, permission, and alternative routing. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple 1-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, consequences, permission, and alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is omitted.
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?
The schema already fully documents commentId as 'The comment's id, from list_issue_comments,' so with 100% coverage the baseline is 3. The description mentions list_issue_comments again in the context of canManage, but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description states a precise action ('Deletes a comment') and the resource, and differentiates it from the sibling 'edit_comment' by directing the user to that alternative for text changes. It also clearly notes the irreversibility and the audit-history retention, making the tool's scope 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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: delete vs. edit ('To just change its text instead, use edit_comment'), and a prerequisite check ('Only the comment's own author can delete it - check canManage in list_issue_comments before calling'). This fully instructs the agent on selecting this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.