docx.comments_delete

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a comment,' which implies a destructive action but omits any side effects (permanence, whether the document must be open, whether it can be undone, etc.). Minimal value beyond what the verb implies.

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 extremely short (4 words), which is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of necessary information. It's front-loaded with the action, but there's no structure to guide the agent. Moderate score for clarity at the expense of substance.

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 operation with no annotationscars, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comment ID is, whether deletion is permanent, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds nothing about what docId or id mean, their format, or how they relate to each other. The agent must guess that docId identifies the document and id identifies the comment, but even that is not stated. The description fails to compensate for the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('comment'), which is clear enough to understand the primary action. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like comments_add and comments_list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of contexts where deletion is appropriate, prerequisites, or scenarios where comments_add or comments_list might be more suitable. The agent gets zero routing information.

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