Delete work item comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the soft-delete behavior and the confirm flag, and notes permission rules. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'soft-delete' means in terms of visibility, recoverability, or side effects, nor does it mention rate limits or authentication specifics. It adds some value but leaves behavioral details unstated.

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, no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the conditional requirement is stated succinctly. It's an efficient definition that communicates everything essential without padding.

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 delete operation, the description covers the key aspects: soft-delete, permission rules, and the confirm flag. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but for a mutation without an output schema, that's acceptable. The inclusion of permission rules and confirm adds context that helps an agent decide when and how to invoke it.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, aside from reiterating the confirm requirement. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't elevate it.

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 clearly states the action (soft-delete) and the resource (Azure Boards work item comment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_pull_request_comment by specifying 'work item comment', and 'soft-delete' adds precision beyond a generic 'delete'.

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?

It provides relevant usage context by mentioning Azure DevOps author and permission rules and requiring confirm=true. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity makes usage clear. The confirm requirement is a practical guideline for when this tool should be invoked.

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