Delete a Figma comment

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the author-only restriction and the required OAuth scope file_comments:write. This helps the agent understand prerequisites and authorization.

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 that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint, auth constraint, and scope. No wasted words.

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 simple delete operation with two required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description adds the necessary auth context. It doesn't mention response format or error cases, but these are not critical for a delete action.

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 coverage is only 50% (comment_id has no description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the comment_id format or any parameter-specific details, leaving a significant gap for a required parameter.

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), and includes the HTTP endpoint, making it unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like post_comment and get_comments by its action and target.

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?

The description provides important context (only the author can delete, required scope) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this tool versus others. The usage is implied by the name and action, but not explicitly guided.

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