Delete a comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real context: "Permanently deletes", "Cannot be undone", and the IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true environment gate. It doesn't say whether replies to the comment are also removed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries information and none is padding.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description covers permanence and the write gate. Minor gaps remain: no mention of reply cascade behavior or failure modes.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required comment_id parameter (only a numeric pattern is given), and the description adds no meaning about what the ID references or where to obtain it. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("deletes a comment") plus a scope qualifier ("on the account's media"), so the agent knows exactly what is targeted. It does not differentiate from sibling ig_hide_comment, which is a non-destructive alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the safer sibling ig_hide_comment is never mentioned as an alternative. The IG_ENABLE_WRITES=true note is a precondition, not routing guidance.

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