Delete comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out irreversibility ('cannot be undone, the text is gone afterwards'), the consequence (comment text destroyed), and the confirm gate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence. Slightly redundant, since 'Permanently' and 'cannot be undone' convey overlapping meaning, but it is otherwise efficient with no waste.

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 three-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and the confirm prerequisite, and annotations cover the safety hints. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 ticketId, commentId, and confirm are fully documented in the schema, and the description only restates the confirm requirement. Per the baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Permanently delete a comment from a ticket'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_comment or delete_ticket, so it falls short of a 5.

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 supplies a prerequisite ('Requires confirm set to true'), which is useful usage context, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_comment or delete_ticket. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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