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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the deletion is visible to 'everyone' and 'waits for the owner's approval', disclosing an asynchronous approval workflow an agent could not infer from 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the destructive scope ('for everyone') is front-loaded ahead of the approval caveat. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the critical missing piece, the owner-approval gate. It could go slightly further on what the caller sees while approval is pending, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 both board_id and comment_id documented including their source tools, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as ID format or where approval state appears.

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') plus the scope constraint 'you wrote, for everyone', which separates it from the sibling edit_comment. The sibling is not named explicitly, but the ownership and audience qualifiers make the operation unambiguous.

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?

'Delete a comment you wrote' implicitly tells the agent it cannot remove others' comments, which is a useful precondition. However, it never explicitly routes the agent to edit_comment for modification or states when deletion is inappropriate, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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