Delete A Task Item Comment

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses the 200 OK empty-body response, permanent removal with 404 on repeat, default values for company_id/project_id, and the specific error statuses (401/403/404). This adds substantial behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence adds unique information: action, response, preconditions, defaults, irreversibility, errors, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and flows logically through usage details.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and three required parameters, the description covers all essential context: purpose, response shape, prerequisite id resolution, default behavior, error scenarios, and idempotency nuance. It is complete despite the lack of an output schema.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters, but the description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted and that id must resolve to an existing record. This supplements the schema's basic 'URL path parameter —' labels.

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 'Deletes the task item comment with ID supplied in path,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_a_task_item_comment, update_a_task_item_comment, and list_task_item_comments. 'Permanently removes' reinforces the destructive intent.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also warns about irreversibility and repeat-call behavior, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools beyond the generic 'matching list tool.'

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