bilibili_comment_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds the ownership/auth scope (只能删自己的评论), which is real value, but it does not state irreversibility or what happens when the rpid no longer exists. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the write tag front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing is repeated from annotations or schema.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and two undocumented identifiers, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it safely (what oid refers to, how failure on an already-deleted rpid is reported). It covers intent but not the operational detail this tool's risk profile demands.

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 only 25%: the critical oid (target object id) and rpid (comment id) properties have no descriptions, and the description adds no explanation of them. Only confirm carries documentation, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the two parameters that decide whether the call hits the right comment.

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 names a concrete verb (删除) and resource (指定评论) plus a scope limit (当前账号自己的), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not name the sibling counterpart bilibili_comment_add, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the tag prefix 互动写入 makes the write intent unmistakable.

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 phrase 当前账号自己的指定评论 functions as an explicit precondition: this only works on comments owned by the authenticated user, implicitly excluding moderation of others' comments. No alternative tool (e.g. bilibili_comment_add for the inverse operation) is named, which keeps it below a 5.

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