seerr_delete_issuecomment

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description's 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' simply restates the annotation without adding new behavioral context such as whether deletion is permanent, permission requirements, or side effects. Adds no value beyond structured data.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the action. The 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' part is somewhat redundant with annotations but not verbose. It is concise, though it omits critical contextual information.

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 tool with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks information about what an issue comment is or how comment_id links to an issue. It does not mention when to use it in a larger workflow, but the sibling tool names provide some context. Overall, the description is thin but not misleading.

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 input schema contains a single required comment_id with no description. The description does not explain what comment_id refers to or how to obtain it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but does not; the parameter name itself carries minimal meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete issue comment') with a specific resource. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name but still conveys the exact operation. It distinguishes from deleting an issue via the 'comment' resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling comment operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this deletes a comment attached to an issue, nor suggest other issue comment operations (create/update/get). The warning about destructiveness is not a usage guideline.

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