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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing an authorization constraint (author or admin only), which is a behavioral aspect not covered by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. It adds useful context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is concise and to the point, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key constraint.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations that cover destructive behavior, the description is adequately complete for a delete operation. It adds the important authorization detail, making it sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and context.

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?

Both parameters (comment_id and verification_id) are described in the schema with references to related tools. The description itself does not add additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a comment.' It is specific and unambiguous, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_verification_comment or update_verification_comment by indicating it is for deletion.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by specifying that deletion is allowed only for the author or admins, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to choose this tool over others. The context is clear from the sibling tools, but explicit guidance is missing.

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