Delete comments

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses irreversibility, per-id outcomes, idempotent handling of already-deleted comments, the server's non-applying default, and permission scopes. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the schema, and none contradict 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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: permanence and preferred alternative, apply/plan precondition, per-id/idempotent behavior, and required permissions. The most decision-relevant info is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 an irreversible write with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, permissions, batch semantics, limits (50), and failure/idempotency behavior. There is no obvious gap an agent would hit when deciding to invoke it or when preparing the call.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat field meanings. It still adds cross-parameter guidance: apply:true must accompany a plan_id, plans come from a previous dry run of the same tool, and each comment_id has an independent outcome. This raises it slightly above the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('PERMANENTLY delete'), a concrete resource ('comments'), and a clear scope ('up to 50'). It also distinguishes itself from the reversible sibling tool facebook_hide_comment, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance by saying to prefer facebook_hide_comment when reversibility matters. It also states the necessary preconditions: apply:true with a plan_id from a dry run, and lists the permission requirements for deleting the Page's own comment versus a user's comment. This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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