Delete Change Event Comment

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: permanent deletion, irreversibility, a 200 empty body on success, a 404 on repeat calls, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). These specifics about side effects and failure modes are highly valuable and go beyond what destructiveHint and idempotentHint provide.

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 detailed but tightly organized, covering purpose, success response, prerequisites, defaults, error handling, required parameters, and the API endpoint in a logical sequence. Every sentence contributes new information without redundancy.

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 destructive delete with four path parameters, the description provides complete operational context: how to confirm IDs, what to expect on success and failure, and the exact endpoint. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately covers the empty-body response and error payloads.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantics: company_id and project_id default to configured values, and change_event_id and id must resolve to existing parent records. This clarifies the hierarchical dependency and prerequisite verification beyond the schema.

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 'Deletes a comment on a change event,' specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_change_event_comment and delete_change_event by clarifying the target is a comment on a change event.

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?

It instructs the agent to confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling and to resolve parent record IDs with the matching list tool. It also notes the defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling list tool or state when not to use this tool.

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