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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the tombstone behavior for replies, the client/session attribution model, and the irrelevance of other users' comments. These behavioral details materially change what an agent should expect after the 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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: ownership constraint, correction workflow, and post-deletion behavior. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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-parameter mutation with rich annotations, the description fully covers ownership, source of the uid, correction pattern, and outcome for replied-to comments. No critical detail needed for correct invocation 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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter as a comment uid, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where those uids come from, which is not present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a comment') and immediately restricts scope to comments posted by the signed-in user, distinguishing it from other delete tools and from comment creation. It clearly identifies the object type and the ownership constraint.

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 that only the signed-in user's own comments may be deleted, explains the correction pattern using create_comment, and directs the agent to get_card / get_epic for comment uids. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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