phabricator_revision_inline_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully narrows the blast radius to drafts only, so an agent knows published state is safe. It also discloses the extension dependency, which is real operational context beyond the annotations; the only omission is confirmation behavior or error cases when the ID is invalid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the restriction, then the prerequisite. No filler and nothing buried.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope limit, and environment requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or refrain when the comment is published.

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 the schema description already explains that inlineID comes from phabricator_revision_inline_search. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since structured data does the work.

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 and resource ('Delete your own draft inline comment') and immediately scopes it against what cannot be deleted ('Published comments cannot be deleted'), which distinguishes it from siblings like inline_publish and inline_done. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 constraint that only drafts can be deleted, and published comments cannot, gives an explicit condition for when this tool applies. It also flags the differential.inline.* extension prerequisite, though it does not name the inline_edit or inline_search alternatives as routing options.

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