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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still contributes real value by warning that a 404 is intentional rather than evidence of a missing comment, and that the API deliberately does not confirm existence of comments the caller does not own — non-obvious behaviour an agent could otherwise mishandle.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the caveat immediately after it. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information the caller needs before issuing the call.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: what is removed, the ownership scoping, and the intentional-404 error semantics. A brief note on irreversibility or auth requirements would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented as "Comment ID, from `Comentario.id`." The description adds only indirect semantics about ownership affecting the outcome, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Deletes a comment") that clearly separates it from the sibling read/write tools list_comments and post_comment. The qualifier "of the owner" is slightly ambiguous about whether it means the comment author or the authenticated caller, so sibling differentiation is implied 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that this is the removal counterpart to post_comment/list_comments from the name alone.

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