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

The annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the ownership restriction and that approval requirements may be configured by an administrator while business workflow approvals always apply.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, followed by the ownership constraint and approval context. Each sentence adds useful information with no 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 destructive two-parameter delete tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important ownership and approval constraints. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the parameter meanings, though the schema names are reasonably clear.

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 0%, and the description does not explain rfiId or commentId at all. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify how the comment must relate to the RFI.

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 specific verb and resource: deleting an RFI comment. It further narrows scope to 'your own' comment, which distinguishes it from updating or listing comments and from deleting other entity comments.

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 clear usage context by specifying that only your own comment can be deleted and that impersonating another author is not allowed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_rfi_comment or delete_rfi, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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