Delete a comment from an Untappd check-in

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the dry-run behavior when confirm is false and the actual deletion when confirm is true. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent with the description. However, the description does not detail what happens if the comment does not exist or if the user is not the owner, which would further improve transparency.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the second explains the confirm parameter behavior. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how to use it safely with the confirm parameter, and where to get the comment_id. It is mostly complete, though it could explicitly mention that only the user's own comments can be deleted and what the expected success response looks like.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (comment_id and confirm). The description adds critical semantic value for the confirm parameter by explaining the dry-run vs actual deletion behavior, which is not fully captured in the schema description. For comment_id, the description reinforces the source (from a check-in's comments list) similarly to 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 clearly states that the tool deletes one of the user's own comments, using the comment id. It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('your comments'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'untappd_add_comment' and 'untappd_delete_checkin'.

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 provides clear guidelines on how to use the confirm parameter: without confirm:true it is a dry-run preview and makes no network call; with confirm:true it deletes. This informs the user about safe usage and the required step to actually delete. It implies that the tool should only be used for the user's own comments, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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