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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds four facts they don't carry: attachments are destroyed along with the comment, the action is irreversible (cannot be edited or restored), the permission model (author or org admin), and the precise idempotency contract for requestId. That is substantive disclosure well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and destruction scope, followed by permission and reversibility constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from the title or annotations.

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, four-required-param tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, the description covers destruction scope, permissions, irreversibility, and idempotency — the essentials for calling it safely. It stops short of covering error conditions or whether the response returns anything, but the core decision inputs are present.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only explains one of four (requestId reuse semantics) — though that is arguably the least obvious one. projectId, cardId, and commentId are left to inference from their self-explanatory names and declared UUID formats.

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 ticket comment") plus the cascade to attachments, so the agent knows exactly what object is affected. It is clearly distinguishable from update_ticket_comment or get_ticket_attachment, but it never names a sibling or contrasts scope explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 supplies one real prerequisite (author or organization admin) and a retry rule for requestId, which counts as usage context. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to an alternative (e.g., update vs delete, or restore options), so usage is only implied.

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