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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: the cascade to attachments, the author-only authorization rule, the non-recoverable nature, and a confirm-first requirement. These are exactly the kinds of consequences an agent needs before firing an irreversible write.

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 its blast radius, then authorization, then ID sourcing. Nothing is padding and the destructive warning is not buried.

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 single-required-param destructive tool with no output schema, this covers what is removed, who may remove it, and irreversibility. It does not say what happens on a repeat or failed call (missing comment, wrong author), which matters given idempotentHint=true.

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 100% and commentUid is already documented as coming from createComment or getDetails, so the description's sentence on ID provenance largely restates the schema. The intent and llm_model parameters are not addressed at all, though the schema covers them adequately.

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 from a Jam") plus a scope detail that changes expectations: attachments are removed too. An agent can distinguish it from editComment and from deleteJam without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ("Only the comment's own author can delete it"), an ID source (createComment result or getDetails), and an operational instruction ("confirm with the user before calling"). It stops short of an explicit either/or against editComment, e.g. "to retract wording but keep the thread, use editComment," so it misses the top band.

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