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

Adds substantial context beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: authorization requirements, the asymmetric outcome (placeholder for comments, full removal plus note-slot release for notes), irreversibility, and the retry contract for requestId. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, permission, consequence, idempotency rule. The destructive consequence is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 no output schema, it covers permissions, side effects, and retry behavior thoroughly. The remaining gap is the undocumented identifiers, which an agent must infer.

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 0%, so the schema only supplies UUID formats with no meaning. The description explains requestId semantics well ('Reuse requestId only for an identical retry'), but says nothing about projectId, groupId, or commentId, leaving three of four parameters unexplained.

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 an internal error comment or status note'), which is enough to distinguish it from delete_ticket_comment. The two sub-resources (free comment vs. note) are also named, though no sibling is explicitly referenced.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('Requires the author or an organization admin') and clarifies behavior differences between deleting a comment and a note. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_error_comment for cases where deletion isn't wanted.

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