delete_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond these: the author-only restriction and irreversibility. This enriches the agent's understanding of consequences and authorization without contradicting the annotations.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose, two key constraints, then a clean Args section and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema and safety hints already supplied by annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation, authorization, irreversibility, parameter meanings, and the return type, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: 'file_id: The numeric file ID' and 'comment_id: The comment ID to delete.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and clearly explains what each argument refers to.

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: 'Delete a comment from a file.' The scope is unambiguous and naturally contrasts with sibling tools like add_comment, edit_comment, and list_comments, making it easy for an agent to differentiate the operation.

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 context for use by stating 'Only the comment author can delete their own comment' and that the action is irreversible, which tells the agent when it is appropriate to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficient for a straightforward delete operation.

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