delete_comments_by_id

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds that the target is a comment or reply, clarifying what will be removed. It does not mention side effects on likes/reactions or permission requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 concise and well-structured: a declarative purpose sentence, the HTTP endpoint, and the parameter definition. There is no filler, and each line adds useful information.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple delete-by-id operation. It does not cover auth or not-found behavior, but these are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully explains the parameter as 'the id/slug of the resource', going beyond the schema's bare string type. It could specify how to obtain the id, but the core semantic is covered.

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 'a comment or reply', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from related like/reaction mutations by specifying that it deletes the comment or reply itself, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only restates the action, leaving usage context mostly to inference.

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