Delete a timeline review comment from a Podcast MCP project; the removal is undoable through history.
Delete a timeline review comment (undoable via history).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "comment_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "comment_id"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — the deletion is 'undoable via history' — but says nothing about whether attached replies/actions are cascaded, required permissions, or whether project_path must resolve to the active review version.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action comes first and the reversible-mutation note is a compact aside. It is efficient, though it leaves most of the definition's obligations unmet rather than being genuinely complete.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an annotation-free mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the definition is thin. Missing are cascade behavior on replies/actions, permission requirements, and how project_path relates to the timeline review context.
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 both parameters and does not. It never mentions comment_id (what form an ID takes, where to get it) or project_path (why it defaults to null, what scoping it applies); the parenthetical only adds behavioral, not parameter, meaning.
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 timeline review comment'), so it is clearly distinct from additive siblings like add_comment_tool and add_comment_reply_tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from the nearest neighbor, resolve_comment_tool, which an agent must choose between without further help.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus resolve_comment_tool, update_comment_tool, or merely resolving a thread. No prerequisites or context (e.g., which review version the comment belongs to) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.