delete_comment_tool

Does 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 explicitly notes that deletion is 'undoable via history', which is a critical safety property for a destructive operation. It does not mention permissions, side effects on replies, or error behavior, but the undoability is a key behavioral trait that goes beyond the bare 'delete' verb.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Delete') and includes the important undoability note in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a simple delete operation.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and only two required parameters, the description is nearly complete. It states the action and the undoability, which are the most important context. It doesn't elaborate on what happens to related replies or whether the operation is idempotent, but for a simple delete, the core behavior is covered. The output schema handles return value details.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain what 'project_path' or 'comment_id' represent, nor does it clarify that both are required. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's field titles, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Delete') on a specific resource ('timeline review comment'), which is immediately clear. It also adds the key detail that the deletion is undoable via history, distinguishing it from a permanent deletion. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 this tool is used to delete a timeline review comment, which is the obvious context. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_comment_tool or resolve_comment_tool, but the action is distinct enough. However, it provides no exclusions or conditions for when to use an alternative, so it doesn't fully guide selection among the many comment-related tools.

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