esa_delete_commentDeletes a comment from an esa team by comment ID. Use it to clean up outdated or unwanted comments on esa.io posts.
Deletes a comment from an esa team by comment ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamName | No | Team name (required). Use esa_get_teams first to see available teams. | |
| commentId | Yes | The comment ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it never says the deletion is irreversible, whether it requires ownership/admin rights, or what happens to replies or attachments on the comment.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is, however, so terse that brevity shades into under-specification.
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, non-read-only operation with no output schema, the description should carry the irreversibility and permission context that annotations cannot express. It omits both, and while the schema covers the parameters, an agent is left without the operational caveats a delete tool warrants.
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 100%, so both parameters (teamName, commentId) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's 'by comment ID' merely restates what the schema already says and adds no format, type, or lookup guidance.
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?
States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (a comment) plus the scoping resource (esa team), so the agent can distinguish it from esa_get_comment, esa_update_comment and esa_create_comment. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any precondition or caution for a destructive operation. The agent gets only 'what', never 'when' or 'only if'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.