delete_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the deletion is permanent/hard-delete, whether it can be undone, whether permission/ownership is required, cascading effects (e.g., on thread responses), or what happens to the comment data. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with zero waste—'Delete a comment'. However, being this terse borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since the description omits valuable behavioral and contextual information that would aid the agent.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. For a delete operation, the description should clarify at least permanent vs. soft delete, permission requirements, and return behavior. The single-sentence description is inadequate given the tool's potential to cause irreversible data loss.

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 single parameter comment_id is the only parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema describing it as 'The comment ID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the format of the ID (UUID, numeric, etc.) or how to obtain it (e.g., from get_task_comments). With only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a comment', which clearly expresses the verb ('delete') and resource ('comment'). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like delete_task, delete_list, delete_time_entry, or update_comment. The purpose is functional but minimal, providing no scope, context, or differentiation from other deletion tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing comment ownership or permission), no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to sibling tools like delete_task_comment or delete_list_comment. The usage context is entirely absent.

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