delete_comment_from_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a comment, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'alias' means operationally. The output mention is minimal ('dict with deletion result') but lacks detail on format or error handling.

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?

The description is brief with three sentences, but it's not optimally structured. The first sentence states purpose, the second lists inputs, and the third mentions output. However, the 'alias' term is unexplained and adds confusion, and the output description is overly vague ('dict with deletion result'). It could be more front-loaded and clearer.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and involves a destructive operation (deletion), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, permissions, and what 'alias' means. The output mention is insufficient for understanding results. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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 description explicitly lists the parameters (post_id, comment_id) and their types, adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain what these IDs represent (e.g., format, source) or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this compensates partially but not fully.

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 states 'Alias to delete a comment on a post' which indicates the action (delete) and resource (comment on a post), but it's vague about what 'alias' means and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_comment'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_comment' or 'delete_post'. The description mentions it's an 'alias' but doesn't explain what that implies for usage. No context about prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions is provided.

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