Delete Comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds only the ID provenance; it does not mention permanence, permissions, or failure behavior. This is a small extra but not a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence usefully summarizes the parameter source, though it partially duplicates the schema property descriptions.

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 destructive tool with two required integers, high schema coverage, and annotations covering destructive/read-only/idempotency traits, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks details about return values or failure modes, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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 coverage is 100% and both properties already say 'from kaiten_get_card_comments', so the description's reference to these parameters adds no new semantic value. It reinforces the provenance but does not clarify formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete comment'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with kaiten_update_comment or kaiten_create_comment, but the delete verb and the reference to fetched comment IDs separate it from those siblings.

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 gives useful practical guidance by stating that commentId and cardId come from kaiten_get_card_comments, implying the correct workflow. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; the usage context is mostly implied by the delete verb.

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