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, that replies survive the deletion, and that a confirmation token is required. These are meaningful behavioral details that materially affect how an agent should invoke the tool.

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 essential information: the core action, the non-cascade behavior, and the confirmation requirement. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Together with the schema, the description fully explains the confirmation flow: call once without confirm_token to receive one, then call again with it. Since there is no output schema, the exact response shape is not specified, but the essential workflow is documented across the description and schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for comment_id and confirm_token, including the confirmation-token workflow. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 uses a specific verb ('Removes'), a clear resource ('a comment'), and a strong qualifier ('permanently'). It also differentiates itself from related comment tools by noting that replies are not removed, which prevents confusion with update_comment or get_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?

The description clearly conveys the primary use case—permanently deleting a comment—and explains the important requirement of a confirmation token. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's scope is so specific that little ambiguity remains.

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