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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'soft delete' (implying reversibility or non-permanent removal) and the authorization requirement. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema and a low parameter description coverage, the description is minimally adequate: it communicates the operation, the soft-delete behavior, and a permission constraint. However, it leaves key required parameters (idempotency_key, commentId vs id) unexplained, so important context 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It does not clarify the distinction between 'id' and 'commentId', explain the required 'idempotency_key', or describe the purpose of 'brand_id' and 'query'. The agent is left guessing about parameter roles.

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 clearly states the action ('soft delete') and the resource ('a comment'), with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_draft, delete_task) and from comment management tools like update_post_comment.

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 gives a clear usage constraint: only the author or workspace owner can delete comments. This tells the agent when the tool can be invoked, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the permission restriction.

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