word_delete_comment

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

The description reinforces the destructiveHint annotation by explaining it removes a comment and strips markers. It also adds that the file is overwritten by default unless output_path is provided, providing full behavioral transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is extremely concise: a single-line summary followed by a clear list of args and returns. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, front-loading the key action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and complete schema, the description provides all necessary context. It mentions the return value ('Status dictionary') and covers edge cases (default overwrite), making it fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that comment_id comes from word_get_comments and clarifying output_path's default behavior, improving parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete a comment from a Word document by comment ID.' It also explains internal operations (removes from comments.xml, strips markers), distinguishing it from sibling tools like word_get_comments or word_reply_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?

It specifies that the comment_id comes from word_get_comments output, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list helps agents differentiate.

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