delete-task-comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the irreversibility is known; the description echoes it ('This cannot be undone') rather than adding new behavioral detail. The confirm-first step is the only genuine addition, and it doesn't discuss permissions or what happens to replies/linked data.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the irreversibility warning and confirmation step, then an example. The format is efficient for a destructive tool, though the 'Returns: success message' line and Korean gloss are minor extras.

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 3-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, a pre-check step, an example call, and the return shape. Missing only permission/authorization requirements and scope of what gets removed.

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 projectId, taskId, and commentId are all documented in the schema. The worked example shows plausible value shapes but adds no semantics beyond the structured fields, so 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 on a Dooray task) and the Korean gloss disambiguates the resource. Siblings like update-task-comment and delete-wiki-page-comment are clearly differentiated by the 'task' qualifier.

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?

Explicitly instructs to confirm the target with get-task-comment before deleting, which gives an agent a concrete prerequisite workflow. It doesn't state when the operation should be avoided entirely or name alternatives beyond the read counterpart, so it stops short of a full 5.

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