Delete a comment

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

The description discloses the default trash behavior and recoverability, and specifies that force:true removes permanently and requires confirm:true. This goes well beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, giving the agent concrete safety context about the data impact.

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 zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important behavioral qualifier (trash vs. permanent). Every word adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key nuances of deletion and the confirm requirement. It lacks usage guidance and doesn't mention potential side effects like associated media, but the core behavior is well specified for an agent to call it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'recoverable' aspect and the explicit constraint that permanent deletion requires both force and confirm, which enriches the semantics beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete a comment') and goes beyond a simple tautology by describing the trash vs. permanent deletion behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from other comment-related tools like moderate_comments or update_comment, which perform different actions.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention moderate_comments or other comment-management tools, nor does it give any context about when deletion is appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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