Delete a comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add valuable traits: the operation is reversible ("The user can undo in the app") and there is a confirmation/consent expectation for the user's own comments. It says nothing about whether deleting another author's comment needs elevated rights, what happens if the id does not exist, or the response shape.

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 short sentences, action front-loaded, then the conditional rule, then the reversibility note. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds information the agent did not already have.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent policy, and reversibility — enough to call it correctly in most cases. The one real hole is the identity of the `id` argument, which is the only input the tool takes.

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 sole parameter is bare `id`. The description never clarifies whether that id is the comment id or the card id, nor the expected format. That ambiguity is exactly the kind of thing the description must compensate for when the schema does not.

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 ("Delete a comment from a card"), which cleanly separates it from the other destroy tools in the sibling list (delete_card, delete_attachment, delete_checklist). It does not explicitly cross-reference those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous enough that no agent would confuse them.

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 a real usage rule: comments with author null belong to the user and should only be deleted on request. That is a meaningful precondition rather than generic filler. It stops short of naming alternatives (update_comment for edits, or how to handle other users' comments requiring explicit instruction), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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