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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it discloses irreversibility, channel-specific reach differences, and who it removes (anyone's comment vs only the connected account's reply. This is valuable context not present in 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, the alternative, channel differences, and the recommendation. The key point is front-loaded and the length is proportionate to the complexity.

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 tool with channel-dependent behavior, the description covers irreversibility, channel support routing, and the alternative. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations indicating destructiveness, nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for postId, replyId, and workspaceId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a comment for good') and immediately contrasts itself with the sibling hide_reply, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

It explicitly states when not to use this tool ('This is not hide_reply: it cannot be undone') and names the alternative ('Prefer hide_reply when the person just wants it out of sight'). It also references list_platforms for determining channel support.

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