delete_recruiting_comment

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the constraint that commentId must belong to the resolved target, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like error handling or permission requirements.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the action and a key constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 schema's high coverage and presence of output schema, the description is sufficient. It clarifies that the comment must be directly attached and the target must resolve correctly, which helps the agent validate inputs.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (target and commentId), including the anyOf structure. The description's main sentence largely restates the purpose, adding minimal additional meaning 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 clearly states the tool deletes a comment directly attached to a Recruiting entity, listing all possible parent objects (vacancy, candidate, applicant, review, opinion). This distinguishes it from generic delete tools like delete_comment.

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 the tool is for Recruiting comments and includes a constraint about commentId belonging to the resolved target, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like delete_comment or update_recruiting_comment.

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