Delete a comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by stating irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and the two-step confirmation requirement ('the user confirms first'), which explains why confirmation_token exists. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if the token is stale.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the alternative, then the risk. No filler and nothing buried.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool the description covers action, alternative, irreversibility, and the confirmation gate. The only gap is the undocumented comment_id format, which matters for correct invocation.

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 67% and comment_id carries no schema description, yet the description adds nothing about its expected format or where to obtain it. The confirmation flow is implied but the token's semantics are already spelled out in the schema, so this is baseline territory.

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 ('Permanently delete a comment') plus the scope ('on your post, yours or someone else's'), which immediately separates it from hide_comment and delete_media in the sibling list.

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 routes the agent: 'Prefer hide_comment unless it must go' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed for a destructive tool.

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