Delete a comment

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

Even though destructiveHint already flags danger, the description adds irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), an access/configuration condition, and a strong recommendation toward hiding. This is decision-relevant context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: the operation, the permanence/prerequisite, and the preferred alternative. There is no filler, repetition, or vague phrasing.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers irreversibility, gating conditions, and a safer alternative, which is largely sufficient. The main remaining gap is the under-documented comment_id, though the parameter name makes its role broadly inferable.

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 documents 'page' but leaves 'comment_id' with only a type and no description. The tool description does not explain where to find the comment ID, its format, or any additional semantics, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 states a specific action and target: 'Permanently delete a comment.' The word 'permanently' adds meaningful scope, and the closing guidance about hiding distinguishes this tool from the sibling hide_comment.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('refused unless deletion is explicitly enabled') and recommends the safer alternative ('Hiding is usually the better answer'). It does not explicitly name hide_comment or spell out when deletion is appropriate, leaving a small gap.

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