delete_comment

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers destructive scope, backup behavior, atomic validated saving, the effect of backup=False, and a hard operational refusal, which is unusually rich and useful.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the caveats are organized into a compact second sentence, each clause adding meaningful behavioral information.

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?

The description covers the destructive behavior, backup mechanics, and a blocking condition, while the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. The main gap is undocumented required parameters and the lack of explicit alternative routing, but overall it is nearly complete for a moderately complex delete operation.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters, but it only explains backup semantics. file_path and comment_id receive no guidance about their format, source, or relationship to get_comments, leaving agents to infer their meaning from parameter names alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a comment and its replies, including all body markers.' This precisely distinguishes it from comment-management siblings like resolve_comment, add_comment, and reply_to_comment by emphasizing full recursive removal.

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 core use case is implied clearly by 'Delete a comment and its replies,' and the refusal to operate on documents open in Word is a useful when-not condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a sibling like resolve_comment should be chosen instead.

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