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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true; the description still adds the author-only restriction, the 204 response code, and the required `tasks:write` API-key scope, all of which are non-obvious. What it omits is what happens on failure (403 vs 404) and whether sibling comments/threads are affected.

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 short sentences, leading with the action, then the permission rule and the response/scope details. Nothing is wasted and the important constraint 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?

The description covers the safety-relevant behavior (author restriction, scope, 204) for a destructive 4-parameter tool with no output schema, which is reasonable. However, the two undocumented required parameters leave an agent guessing about identifier formats, which is a real gap for a 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: `account` and `workspace` are richly documented in the schema, but `ref` and `commentIdentifier` have no descriptions anywhere. The description says nothing about what `ref` refers to (task reference?) or the accepted form of `commentIdentifier`, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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'), which cleanly separates it from pm_update_task_comment and pm_list_task_comments in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than spelled out.

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?

'Only the original author may delete' gives a concrete precondition that tells the agent when the call can succeed, and the scope note indicates required credentials. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., updating/editing a comment instead) for callers who are not the author.

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