delete_merge_request_discussion_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the action 'Delete'. It does not mention that the operation is irreversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects on the discussion thread.

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, front-loaded sentence contains no filler or redundancy. For a simple delete operation, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, and the required parameter relationships are not stated; the schema also lacks a required array. An agent would benefit from context such as 'this deletes a note within an existing discussion thread' and the need to supply all four identifiers.

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%, so the input schema already explains all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about how discussion_id, note_id, project_id, and merge_request_iid combine to identify the target note.

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 states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'discussion note on a merge request', so an agent can tell what object is affected. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling delete_merge_request_note, so it falls short of fully distinguishing sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of delete_merge_request_note, update_merge_request_discussion_note, or other note-related tools. The intended context of notes inside a discussion thread must be inferred from the name and description rather than stated.

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