bitrix24_task_comment_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent but replaced by a placeholder, authorization requirements, and the internal API call (im.message.delete). No contradictions exist.

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 three sentences, directly front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, source of ID, placeholder effect, authorization, internal call reason). No unnecessary words.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what happens to the comment (placeholder), who can delete, and why a specific API is used. It is fully complete for the tool's context.

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 already covers the parameter with a description, but the description adds useful context: the commentId is the same as the IM message ID and originates from bitrix24_task_comment_add. This reinforces understanding beyond the schema, warranting a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Delete a Bitrix24 task comment by ID.' It specifies the source of the ID (from bitrix24_task_comment_add) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining the internal mechanism (im.message.delete) and the placeholder behavior, making the purpose 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 description provides context on when to use the tool (to delete task comments) and specifies authorization (only author or admins). It implicitly guides the agent away from using generic IM deletion tools by noting the internal API call and webhook scope limitation, though it does not explicitly list alternatives.

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