delete_comment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool mutates state by deleting a comment, but it does not mention permanence, side effects, or response/error behavior, which are relevant for a deletion tool.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core operation in the first and the one essential prerequisite in the second. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the input schema.

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 delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the invocation contract is incomplete: it does not state what a successful deletion returns or how the task_id should be obtained. The description gives only partial parameter context and no behavioral expectations beyond the act of deletion.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema. It adds meaning only for comment_id by directing the agent to list_comments; task_id remains an unexplained integer with no guidance on where it comes from or how it should be formatted.

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?

States exactly the operation ('Delete a comment') and the resource scope ('from a task'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_comments, add_comment, and update_comment by naming the destructive variant.

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 first sentence implies when to use it (whenever a comment needs removal), and the second gives a concrete prerequisite ('Get comment_id from list_comments'). However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare against alternatives such as update_comment.

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