delete_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one real behavioral fact: the operation is guarded by optimistic locking. However, it omits whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, what permissions are required, and what happens on a version mismatch — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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, zero filler, and the effect (delete a comment) is front-loaded ahead of the precondition. Nothing requires trimming.

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 5-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the locking precondition but leaves the failure mode (version conflict), permission requirements, and endpoint/project resolution unaddressed. The schema fills in parameter details, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including version's 'Obtain from get_comments or add_comment response' guidance. The description's optimistic-locking note largely restates the schema's version field description, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a comment from a pull request.' That is unambiguous against siblings like add_comment and edit_comment, which differ by verb. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative to use when a comment should be modified rather than removed, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in text.

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 description gives a prerequisite ('Requires the comment version for optimistic locking') but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. use edit_comment to modify instead). Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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