meta-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully communicates the irreversible nature of the deletion. However, it omits other critical behavioral details such as whether this cascades to delete replies, required authentication/ownership levels, or rate limiting concerns typical for Instagram API write operations.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the operation and scope, the second provides the critical irreversibility warning. Information is front-loaded with the action verb immediately clarifying intent. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter destructive operation without output schema, the description is appropriately complete. The irreversibility warning adequately covers the primary risk. Minor gaps remain regarding cascade behavior (replies) and differentiation from ig_hide_comment, but these do not prevent correct tool invocation.

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% (comment_id is fully described in the schema as 'Comment ID to delete'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, such as ID format expectations or where to obtain valid comment IDs (e.g., from ig_get_comments).

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (delete), resource (comment), and scope (from your media post). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like ig_hide_comment (hide vs delete permanence) and ig_delete_media (comment vs media deletion) through precise verb choice and object specification.

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 irreversibility warning provides implicit guidance about the destructive nature, but the description lacks explicit comparison to ig_hide_comment (which preserves the comment for moderators) or prerequisites like media ownership requirements. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided despite having a close sibling alternative.

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