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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on related data. It merely restates the action without enriching the annotation-provided safety profile.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope ('Remove a comment from an issue.') and wastes no words, making it highly concise and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one simple parameter, no output schema) and that annotations already cover destructiveness, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the action. It could mention permanence or failure modes, but the existing annotation and schema fill most gaps, making the description adequate for a simple delete operation.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter commentId with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline. Since the schema already handles it, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove a comment from an issue.' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_doc_comment by specifying 'from an issue'. It is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for issue comments but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like edit_comment or delete_doc_comment. The context of 'from an issue' hints at the correct domain, but there is no stated exclusion or conditional guidance.

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