typst_delete_commentPermanently deletes a comment thread in a Typst project when removal is explicitly requested; resolve comments instead when you only need to close the discussion.
Permanently delete a comment thread. Prefer typst_resolve_comment unless the user asks to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the key extra fact that deletion is permanent (as opposed to the reversible resolve), which tells the agent this is not a soft-state change. It omits replay/second-call behavior and whether replies in the thread go with it, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and followed by the routing rule. No filler, nothing to trim.
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 two-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to act safely and pick the right sibling. The remaining gap is the undocumented comment_id expectation (e.g., from typst_list_comments) and whether threaded replies are removed.
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 says nothing about either parameter. Schema coverage is only 50%: project_id carries a description and a concrete example format, but comment_id is a bare string in both schema and prose. With two required params and a coverage gap, the description should have compensated 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 and resource ('delete a comment thread') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling typst_resolve_comment, so the agent can distinguish the destructive path from the soft path without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly names the preferred alternative and the condition that selects this tool instead ('unless the user asks to delete'). That is a complete when/how routing rule in one clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.