Delete a comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds materially new behavior: the double gate on apply:true and the IG_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE environment flag, plus the fact that a failed gate degrades to a preview rather than erroring. It does not describe the return payload, but the irreversibility and gating disclosure are the important traits here.

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 compact sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the irreversibility plus safer alternative, then the gating rule. Irreversibility is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the alternative, and the exact conditions under which the write fires versus previews. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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%, so commentId and account are already documented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by tying apply:true to a second, external precondition (IG_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true), which the schema's description of apply does not mention.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete a comment'), includes the underlying endpoint, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the moderation-friendly sibling instagram_hide_comment. An agent can route between delete, hide, and unhide without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when/when-not: prefer instagram_hide_comment when the moderation may need to be undone, otherwise this tool. It also states the runtime preconditions (apply:true plus IG_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) that must hold before anything actually happens.

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