weeek_delete_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the deletion is 'permanent'/'irreversible' and gated behind an explicit confirm:true flag, which reinforces the destructive semantics without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. The destructive consequence and the confirm gate are front-loaded where the agent will see them first.

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, 3-parameter destructive operation with annotations covering destructiveness and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything critical: what is deleted, that it is irreversible, and the confirmation requirement. Only the exact meaning of each ID parameter is left implicit.

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 only 33% – only 'confirm' is documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by implying the two integer IDs map to a task ('from a WEEEK task') and a single comment, and repeats the confirm requirement, but never clarifies id vs comment_id explicitly.

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 ('delete') on a specific resource ('one comment from a WEEEK task'), with the permanence qualifier. An agent can instantly distinguish this from weeek_delete_task and the comment siblings (weeek_add_comment, weeek_list_comments).

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 conveys the context (removing a single comment) and states the confirm:true prerequisite, but never says when to prefer this over alternatives or what happens if the comment or task doesn't exist. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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