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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the cascade effect (replies under the comment are deleted too), irreversibility, the required user confirmation, and the meaning of a 403 reconnect_required error including the remediation path. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then cascade behavior, safety, parameter clarification and error handling. Every sentence carries information absent from the schema or annotations; nothing is padding.

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?

Single-required-parameter tool with no output schema and complete annotations; the description covers scope, side effects, irreversibility, confirmation requirements and the one documented error path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 100% on the single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine disambiguation: it warns that message_id is the #id in the thread, not the conversation id — a real confusion source given siblings like get_inbox_conversation. It stops short of any id format example, so not 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (delete), the exact resource (a comment on one of the workspace's posts), and the two surfaces affected (platform and inbox). It also carves out platform scope (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok) and explicitly names the sibling it is not (hide_inbox_comment for YouTube). An agent can distinguish this from every other inbox tool without opening a 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (FB/IG/TikTok comments), when-not (YouTube, because the API cannot delete others' comments, use hide_inbox_comment), and a mandatory pre-call step ('confirm with the user before calling'). That is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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