delete_comment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Permanently', which is useful confirmation rather than new information. It adds the provenance of commentId but says nothing about recovery, permissions, or whether cascade effects occur — modest value beyond the annotation.

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?

One sentence plus a short parenthetical clause, with the irreversible nature front-loaded and the disambiguation trailing. Nothing is redundant with the title, and no sentence could be cut without losing meaning.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the key identifier's origin, and the edit alternative, while annotations handle the safety profile. The only real hole is the undocumented workspace parameter.

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 67%, with commentId and identifier documented in the schema while workspace has no description anywhere. The description's note that commentId comes from list_comments is genuinely helpful provenance, but it leaves the workspace parameter entirely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Permanently delete a comment on an issue') and immediately disambiguates from the sibling update_comment, so an agent can pick between delete and edit without opening either 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?

It names the alternative operation explicitly ('to edit: update_comment') and ties the required commentId to its source tool, list_comments. It stops short of stating exclusions such as when to remove the parent issue instead, so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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