Delete comments from DOCX/OOXML documents to remove annotations and prepare files for final distribution.
Delete comment
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "docx.comments_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Delete comment' only states the verb and resource, providing no information about persistence, irreversibility, current document state, or target comment identity.
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 only two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks essential operational detail while providing no more information than the tool name itself.
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?
This is a mutation-like operation with no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, yet the description gives no context about target selection, save requirements, or interaction with the open document. It is far from complete for an agent to use safely.
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 no parameters, so the description needed to explain how the deletion target is resolved, but it does not. The empty schema combined with an unexplained operand makes invocation ambiguous.
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 'Delete comment' restates the tool name and identifies the resource, but it does not explain which comment is deleted or how the target is selected. This is a tautological description that lacks the specificity needed to distinguish meaningful invocation behavior.
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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like docx.comments_add or docx.comments_list. It gives no context for how the comment to delete is determined or whether a preceding list operation is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.