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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations do not: the permanent erasure of text and the authorization model (self vs Administrator), which an agent needs before calling.

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 tight sentences with the action and effect front-loaded, followed by the permission rule. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from annotations.

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 one-parameter delete with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing context: irreversibility and who may invoke it. It does not mention failure modes (e.g., deleting someone else's comment as a non-admin) or effects on threaded replies, which keeps it just short of 5.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add format or constraints beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('Delete a comment') and immediately clarifies the effect ('its text is erased for good'). It is clearly distinguishable from edit_comment and list_comments without opening the schema.

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 gives the permission condition (author may delete their own, Administrator anyone's), which tells the agent when the call is allowed. However, it never contrasts this with edit_comment or other alternatives, and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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