delete_commentPermanently delete a Facebook comment by comment ID; this action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a comment. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page id or exact Page name. Omit to use the default Page (or the Page that owns the given post). | |
| comment_id | Yes | Graph object id, e.g. '1234567890' or '<pageid>_<postid>'. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important detail that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, though it does not mention permission requirements or side effects such as whether replies 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?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and the permanence warning is front-loaded alongside the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple destructive operation.
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?
With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the core action and irreversibility. However, for a destructive deletion tool, it omits potentially relevant context such as permission needs, effects on comment replies, or when to prefer hiding over deletion.
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 100%, so both the required comment_id and optional page parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 a specific verb and resource ("delete a comment") and adds the permanence qualifier, making the action clear. It does not name or explicitly distinguish the closest sibling, set_comment_hidden, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_comment_hidden or delete_post. It only restates the action and its irreversibility, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.