Sb3 Remove Comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove a sprite comment. (proxied)' and does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on replies, error behavior, or authentication. The 'proxied' note adds minor context but does not meaningfully disclose operational consequences.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is somewhat vague but not redundant. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it is perhaps too terse to fully support the tool's usage.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not clarify how to get a comment_id, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the comment does not exist, or whether the comment is a code comment versus a social comment. Although an output schema exists, key operational context 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?

The input schema has one required parameter, comment_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention comment_id or explain how to obtain it, what format it should be in, or how it relates to the sprite comment being removed. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a sprite comment.' This clearly identifies the action and the target. It also differentiates from sibling tools like sb3_add_comment, sb3_set_comment, and sb3_list_comments by focusing on deletion, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a sprite comment needs to be removed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to use sb3_set_comment instead or whether the project must be open first.

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