Delete Comment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral details: the irreversible nature ('cannot be undone') and the confirmation requirement with specific client-dependent behavior (elicitation-capable vs. others). This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag, explaining the exact interaction pattern. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core action and irreversibility, the second explains the confirmation flow. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague statements. It is front-loaded and immediately informative.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: target scope, irreversibility, and the required two-call confirmation pattern. It mentions a 'preview' without detailing its format, but the absence of an output schema plus the explicit confirmation guidance makes the tool sufficiently usable for an agent to succeed.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for id, confirm, and comment_id, and the resource enum is self-explanatory. The description adds a little by mapping 'resource' to the four item types, but this is essentially redundant. With schema coverage at 75%, the description contributes some cross-reference but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Delete a comment from an epic, user story, task, or issue,' which clearly identifies the action (delete), the resource (comment), and the scope (four project item types). This directly distinguishes the tool from siblings like comment_add, comment_edit, and comment_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?

The description provides explicit usage context by explaining the two-step deletion process: first call without confirm returns a preview, then a second call with confirm:true (or interactive prompt) performs the deletion. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, the confirmation guidance is a clear directive for when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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