delete_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete a comment' and omits critical details such as whether the deletion is permanent, cascades to related data, or requires special permissions. This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—four words, zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is simple and direct. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though for the simplicity of the operation this is acceptable.

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?

Despite having a full schema and output schema, the description lacks behavioral context for a destructive operation. It doesn't explain side effects, reversibility, or authorization requirements. Given no annotations, this makes the tool risky for an AI agent to invoke without additional information.

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 the input schema fully documents both parameters (issue_key and comment_id). The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 'Delete a comment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (comment), making the tool's purpose easy to understand. It distinguishes from sibling comment tools like add_comment or update_comment, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate comment types (e.g., issue vs. entity comments).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., delete_entity_comment) would be more appropriate. The usage is only implicitly understood from the name and description.

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