delete_pull_request_review_comment

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that deletion is permanent, content cannot be restored, and requires matching ownership/node ID/updatedAt as a safety check. However, with no output schema and no detailed info about what happens on conflict (e.g., error behavior when updatedAt doesn't match), some behavioral transparency is missing. It doesn't contradict annotations, so the score reflects the partial but useful additional context.

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 sentences, both purposeful and front-loaded with the core action 'Permanently delete an inline review comment.' The second sentence adds the non-restorability warning. Zero wasted words. It could potentially add a brief note on obtaining the expected values, but the current text is concise and efficient.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with only 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the destructive nature, the matching precondition, and the tool's core action. However, with low schema coverage, it doesn't fill the gap on parameter semantics—it doesn't explain how to obtain expectedNodeId and expectedUpdatedAt or what triggers success/failure. The description is adequate for a simple deletion flow but incomplete for guiding parameter population.

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 only 14%, meaning only the repository parameter has a schema description. The description mentions expectedNodeId and expectedUpdatedAt as validation constraints conceptually, but doesn't explain where to obtain these values (e.g., from the review comment listing or get_pull_request_review_comment). The description does not describe account, hostname, pullRequestNumber, or reviewCommentId semantics, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 clearly states the tool 'Permanently delete an inline review comment' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (inline review comment on a pull request). It distinguishes it from the sibling update_pull_request_review_comment (modifying vs deleting). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for contrast, so it falls just short of a 5 despite the clear verb+resource+scope framing.

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 mentions that deletion requires 'PR ownership, node ID, and updatedAt value all match' which implies a validation precondition, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like update_pull_request_review_comment. It doesn't state when not to use it or provide fallback alternatives. The destructive warning is implied via the permanent-deletion statement but no explicit usage context is given.

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