kaiten_delete_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that deletion is permanent, whether re-deleting raises an error (non-idempotent), or whether authorization on the card is required.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted wording and the action front-loaded. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a destructive two-parameter mutation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive, non-idempotent delete with fully undocumented parameters, the description omits irreversibility, error behavior, and parameter meaning — leaving real gaps relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

Both parameters (card_id, comment_id) have 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning at all. The description does not compensate — it never explains that card_id scopes the comment's parent card or that comment_id must be an existing comment on that card.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Delete ... card comment"), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like kaiten_delete_card, kaiten_update_comment, and kaiten_remove_card_tag. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the target entity is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as permissions or comment authorship, and no pointer to recovery options (e.g., whether the comment can be restored). The agent must infer all of this 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.