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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's burden is lower, yet it still discloses a non-obvious server-side guard: deletion is restricted to agent-authored comments regardless of session role. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences, no filler; the core action leads and the restriction follows immediately as rationale.

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, the description plus annotations cover everything needed: safety profile, idempotency, the authorization guard, and the identity of the target. No output schema exists, but a delete's return value is not decision-relevant here.

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 single commentId parameter is documented at 100% schema coverage with its UUID type and meaning. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Delete ... comment") plus a scoping qualifier ("agent-authored") that cleanly separates it from update_comment, list_comments, and create_comment in the sibling set. An agent knows exactly which operation this performs.

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?

Gives an explicit negative condition — refuses human-authored comments even with OWNER/ADMIN — which tells the agent when not to call it and that elevation won't help. It doesn't name a sibling alternative for moderation, but the exclusion is concrete and actionable.

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