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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It nonetheless adds genuinely non-obvious context: only the owner's comment can be deleted, and a 404 is deliberately returned to avoid revealing whether someone else's comment exists. That error-semantics disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs when interpreting a failed call.

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 sentences, zero filler: the purpose and ownership scope come first, the non-obvious 404 rationale second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key surprising behavior (ownership + intentional 404). It does not discuss irreversibility or response content, but with destructiveHint set and no output schema, those are minor omissions.

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 parameter 'id' already documents its origin (Comentario.id), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline here.

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 (Apaga) and resource (um comentário) plus a scope qualifier (do próprio dono), which lets an agent separate it from post_comment (which adds) and list_comments (which lists) without opening any schema.

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 ownership restriction implies when it is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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