Permanently delete a YouTube comment by id (or 'youtube:comment:'). Cannot be undone. Costs 50 quota units.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | Bare commentId OR 'youtube:comment:<id>'. | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the irreversibility signal partly overlaps. The description still adds real value beyond them: explicit 'Cannot be undone' confirmation and the 50-quota-unit cost, which no annotation conveys. It does not describe failure modes or what the response returns.
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 fragments, front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility warning, then the cost. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent decisions: what it does, that it is irreversible, and its quota cost. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what happens when the comment id is invalid.
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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, and the description's id-format note merely repeats the comment_id schema text. Nothing is said about in_workspace, but the schema handles it. Baseline 3.
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 ('Permanently delete a YouTube comment'), plus the accepted id forms. There is no sibling differentiator against near-neighbours such as youtube_moderate_comment, which could also remove/hide a comment, so it stops short of the 5 tier.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb; the description adds no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance. The quota note ('Costs 50 quota units') is useful selection context but is not an alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.