rx_delete_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the effect is visible to all board participants (комментарий пропадает у всех участников) and a confirmation step is required. It does not cover permissions or irreversibility details beyond the destructive hint, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the action first, then restrictions, then the alternative, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence adds useful information, though it could be slightly tighter by merging the ownership constraint with the first sentence.

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 destructive mutation tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, the ownership restriction, the alternative tool, and the pre-call UX requirement. It does not address error conditions or what happens if the comment is not found, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are clearly documented in the schema with source references (id в скобках в строках rx_tickets и rx_board; число после # в rx_ticket). The description only names the parameters (Id карточки и Id комментария из rx_ticket) without adding new format or validation details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

StartsWith a specific verb+resource (Удалить свой комментарий к карточке agile-доски) and clarifies ownership scope (Чужие комментарии не удаляет), so it is immediately distinguishable from rx_comment_ticket and rx_edit_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?

Explicitly states the alternative (Исправить текст вместо удаления: rx_edit_comment) and adds a required pre-call step (Перед вызовом покажите пользователю, какой комментарий будет удалён), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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