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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so 'Destructive' repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The description does add the scope constraint (only one exact comment, scoped to an already-resolved post) and the resolution prerequisite, but says nothing about whether replies cascade, whether the action is reversible, or what failure on a non-idempotent repeat looks like.

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 core instruction is correctly front-loaded ('Delete one exact comment'), but the body copies the post_id and comment_id schema descriptions verbatim, padding the definition with content the agent already receives in the schema.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational detail an agent needs (ID resolution order and valid sources). It omits return-value expectations and cascade/permission behavior, which are minor given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description text for post_id and comment_id is a verbatim duplication of the schema descriptions rather than new meaning. The only marginal addition is the account_id guidance, which is already carried in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one exact comment') and scopes it precisely with 'one exact comment.' An agent can distinguish it from siblings like social_update_comment, social_resolve_comment, and linkedin_reply_to_comment without opening any 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?

Gives explicit prerequisites and sequencing ('Resolve post_id then comment_id'), concrete obtain-with chains (linkedin_list_post_comments -> comment.id, etc.), and negative constraints ('never use comment text as ID'). It does not name the sibling social_resolve_comment as the resolver for an unknown comment, which is the one missing routing hint.

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