Delete comment

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable authorization context by specifying the ownership rule, which goes beyond the structured metadata. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key restriction. There is no redundant or filler content—every word adds value.

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 simple two-parameter destructive operation with complete schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the action, the object, and the critical permission rule. Not mentioning return values or error cases is acceptable since no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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?

Both parameters (task_id and comment_id) have full schema descriptions with UUID format and required status. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction ('Delete a comment from a task') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task_comment, add_task_comment, and get_task_comments. It immediately states the primary action and target.

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 clearly states a key usage constraint: 'You can only delete your own comments.' This provides practical context for when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios. Still, for a simple delete operation, this is sufficient guidance.

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