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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the authorship/permission requirement and specifying the target as an 'approval comment.' This is context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Delete,' and contains no wasteful wording. Each word adds meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers destructive behavior and permission context. However, the lack of clarification that item_id is the comment ID is a significant gap that could lead to misidentification of the target. A brief parameter explanation would make it complete.

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 only parameter, item_id, is a required integer with no schema description (0% coverage). The description never explains that item_id refers to the comment ID, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 tool deletes an approval comment, with a specific scope: 'you authored (or any comment if you have the permission).' This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like add_queue_comment, update_queue_comment, and list_queue_comments.

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 (deleting a comment) but does not explicitly mention when to use this over update_queue_comment or when not to use it. The permission note provides context, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives.

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