delete_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses the destructive nature and the authentication requirement (FIGMA_TOKEN, REST API), which is real added value, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether threaded replies are also removed, or required permissions beyond the token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive action and the auth prerequisite are both delivered compactly.

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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the action and auth need, which is close to sufficient. It falls short on parameter meaning and on consequences of deletion, both of which an agent would want before calling a destructive tool.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not – it never explains what fileKey or commentId are or their expected format. Only the implied file/comment context of the verb gives any hint.

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 (Delete) and resource (a comment in a Figma file), which cleanly separates it from sibling post_comment and list_comments. It adds transport context (REST API) but never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb – an agent can infer you call this when you want a comment removed – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as editing a comment instead. The FIGMA_TOKEN note is a prerequisite, not routing guidance.

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