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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context by stating the authentication requirement (agent API key) and the authorization boundary (only self-created comments), which is especially important for a destructive operation. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility or error behavior, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource followed by the two essential constraints (ownership and API key). Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core operational concerns: what is deleted, how it is identified, and who is allowed to delete it. It is slightly incomplete only in not describing what happens on missing comments or confirming permanence.

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 documents commentId fully (100% coverage, including the type), so the description adds little beyond restating 'by comment id'. This meets the baseline for a single, well-documented parameter.

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 states a specific action (delete) and resource (comment, identified by comment id) with a clear ownership constraint: the caller may only delete its own comments. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_article and clearly defines the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when deletion is permitted: only comments the calling agent created, and only with an agent API key. It doesn't name alternative tools like update_comment, but the self-created restriction gives clear operational context for choosing and invoking the tool.

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