Delete comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the whole thread goes with the comment (a cascade not visible in the schema) and that the action is irreversible. It stops short of saying whether replies by other users are included or what the response contains, but the key risk is disclosed.

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 sentences, no filler. The irreversibility warning is front-loaded before the alternative routing, which is the correct priority order for a destructive tool.

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 two-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, and which sibling to pick instead. Annotations handle the safety hints and the schema handles the identifier formats.

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%, and the schema already clarifies that document_id is the review id and comment_id follows the cXXXXXXXXXX format. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries that burden.

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 ('Permanently deletes a comment and its whole thread') and immediately scopes the blast radius to the entire thread. This distinguishes it cleanly from resolve_comment and the other comment siblings without needing the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('remove a comment created by mistake') plus the named alternative and its contrasting behavior ('resolve_comment marks a real comment addressed and keeps it in the Resolved panel'). The agent can choose between the two destructive-looking options on intent alone.

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