Delete a comment

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that deletion is permanent with no undo and that the tool refuses to run without explicit confirmation. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and then stating the key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward destructive tool with three well-documented parameters and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: resource, ID mechanism, and required confirmation flag. No output schema is present, but nothing about the call itself is left ambiguous.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents comment_id, confirm, and publication. The description's 'by id' and 'confirm: true' merely restate schema content without adding new parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Delete a comment by id'), immediately distinguishing it from other deletion tools like delete_draft and delete_note. It also states the permanent nature and confirmation requirement, so an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for permanently deleting a comment and states the required confirm: true condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's name and scope make its usage obvious among the many sibling tools.

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