delete_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states a key behavioral trait: the author-only restriction and the implication that non-authors will be rejected. It does not detail other side effects (e.g., irreversibility, cascade deletion of replies), but for a simple delete tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Delete a comment') followed by the essential authorization rule. Every word earns its place; there is no waste or redundancy.

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 1-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the critical usage constraint. It does not explain the return value or behavior on failure, but these are often implicit for delete operations. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, but its description ('ID of the resource') is generic and does not specify 'comment'. The tool description implicitly clarifies that the id refers to a comment, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, no additional syntax, format, or validation details are provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Delete a comment.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_comment, update_comment, and list_comments. The additional authorization constraint ('Only the comment author can delete their own comments') further clarifies scope.

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 a clear usage rule: only the comment author can perform the deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool vs. others (e.g., update_comment for editing, list_comments for viewing). The authorization context is helpful, but exclusion/alternative guidance is absent.

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