mdl_comments_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context: host-configured MyDramaList authentication is required, and the operation changes remote data. It does not say whether only one's own comments can be deleted or what a failure returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the auth and usage constraint. No filler, though the 'Comments: delete.' phrasing is slightly terse and the spacing is sloppy.

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 single-parameter tool whose annotations already flag the risk profile, the description covers the essentials: auth requirement and mutation warning. It omits the one thing the schema cannot express — the identity/ownership semantics of comment_id and the result of deletion — leaving a moderate 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?

There is exactly one parameter, comment_id, with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a union type and a pattern. The description adds no meaning about the ID format, ownership constraints, or how to obtain the value, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Comments: delete'), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from siblings like mdl_comments_update, mdl_comments_post, and mdl_comments_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the purpose is clear.

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?

'use only for an explicit user request' gives a clear condition for invocation, and the auth prerequisite is stated. It does not name the sibling alternatives (update vs. delete) or state what to do instead, so it falls just short of the top band.

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