Delete a comment

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

Annotations only signal openWorldHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes further by explaining the irreversibility, the double-gating mechanism, and the preview behavior when conditions are not met. This adds meaningful behavioral context 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: what the tool does, why to prefer an alternative, and when it actually executes. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive single-comment operation with no output schema, the description fully covers the key facts: irreversibility, safer alternative, required apply flag, environment gate, and preview fallback. An agent has enough context to decide and invoke correctly.

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 three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that apply is not just a boolean but part of a double-gate with IG_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE, which enriches the parameter's semantics without duplicating the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a comment' with the HTTP endpoint DELETE /{comment-id}. It clearly distinguishes itself from reversible moderation by naming instagram_hide_comment as the safer alternative.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'prefer instagram_hide_comment for moderation you may want to undo.' It also documents the exact conditions required for the action to execute, including apply:true and IG_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true.

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