delete_commentPermanently delete a comment from a Plane work item. Provide project, work item, and comment IDs to remove it irreversibly.
Permanently delete a work item comment. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | Comment UUID (from `list_comments`). | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID. | |
| work_item_id | Yes | Work item UUID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / comment_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Comment UUID (from `list_comments`)."Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Project UUID."Input schema / properties / work_item_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Work item UUID."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the deletion is permanent and irreversible ('This cannot be undone'), which is the critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the core risk is well communicated.
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. The key fact (permanent deletion) is front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning is placed immediately after.
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 destructive tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context. It could mention the need for the comment to come from list_comments, but that is already in the schema, so the overall package is sufficient.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which warrants the baseline score of 3.
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 action ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('work item comment'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_comment and update_comment by emphasizing permanence.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_comment or delete_work_item. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.