delete_draft_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the destructive scope ('ALL draft comments') but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or effects on published comments. The 'ALL' emphasis provides some warning, but key details are missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a clear verb and object. It is extremely concise with no redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations, behavioral caveats, and differentiation from the singular variant, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of `change_id` or `gerrit_base_url`. It only mentions 'a CL', which loosely hints at change_id but does not map parameters explicitly, leaving the agent to infer crucial details.

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 clearly states the action ('Deletes'), the resource ('ALL draft comments'), and the scope ('on a CL'), distinguishing it from the singular `delete_draft_comment` sibling by emphasizing 'ALL'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular `delete_draft_comment` or other alternatives. It implies usage through 'ALL' but does not state when not to use it or describe exclusions.

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