Delete the channel’s own comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety framing is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the own-comment restriction and the user-confirmation requirement that gates execution. It stops short of saying what error or no-op occurs when the target is not the channel's own comment.

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 with zero filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the redirect to the sibling plus the confirmation caveat follow in the order an agent needs them.

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-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, the alternative path and the confirmation gate. Minor gaps remain: whether deleting a parent comment also removes its replies, and what happens when the confirmation_token is missing or stale.

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%: the channel and confirmation_token parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'identical arguments' token rule. comment_id has no schema description, and the description only implicitly constrains it to the channel's own comment or reply rather than adding format or cascade details.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Delete a comment or reply') with an explicit scope restriction: only comments the channel itself wrote. It also names the sibling tool that handles the other case, so an agent can distinguish delete_comment from moderate_comments immediately.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule (own comments) and an explicit alternative for the excluded case (other people's comments go to moderate_comments). It also flags the prerequisite that the user must confirm before the call succeeds.

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