nexus_discard_comment

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is a soft-delete, the action consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than v1 REST quota, discarded comments are removed from public view, permission is limited to author/moderator, and restore auth limitations make the action one-way with API keys. This is far beyond what annotations alone convey and is directly useful for safe invocation.

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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: the operation definition, the rate-limit pool distinction, the permission scope, the restore-auth caveat, and the return shape. The content is organized into short labeled sections with no filler or redundancy. It is sufficiently detailed without being bloated.

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 operation, the description covers all essential context: what the operation does, who can perform it, what the side effects are, what the auth caveats are, and what the response looks like. The existence of sibling operations like nexus_hide_comment, nexus_lock_comment, and nexus_restore_comment emphasizes the need for this context, and the description handles it well. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already fully documents comment_id with a clear description and type constraint, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that a comment is being discarded; however, the behavioral context around authorship and restore limitations indirectly informs how the parameter should be chosen. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Discard (soft-delete) a comment via v2 GraphQL.' It distinguishes itself from sibling operations like hide, lock, or restore by specifying the soft-delete nature, author/moderator restriction, and explicitly referencing nexus_restore_comment as the complementary operation. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does without inspecting 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?

The description gives clear context for when it applies: discarding a comment removes it from public view, only the author or a moderator can perform it, and restoring requires OAuth Bearer auth so discard is effectively one-way with apikey-only auth. This implies when not to use it (e.g., when restore may be needed under apikey-only auth) but does not explicitly name alternative tools such as nexus_hide_comment or nexus_lock_comment for less destructive moderation actions.

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