clm_site_equipment_command_delete_equipment_booking_comment

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds substantial behavioral context: the operation marks rather than removes, the comment is excluded from subsequent reads, and physical data remains intact. This clarifies the partial-reversibility nature of the mutation. It does not disclose whether the deletion can be undone or the effect on related bookings, but the disclosure of soft-delete semantics notably exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 22-word sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Soft-deletes an equipment booking comment') before adding the subtle detail about read exclusion and physical retention. Every clause earns its place; no filler, no repetition of the tool name's obvious parts.

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 one-parameter mutation with only destructiveHint annotated, the description explains the behavioral consequence well and the output schema covers return values. However, it leaves the agent to guess what ItemId denotes and whether the soft-delete is reversible, and it does not reference the obvious counterpart clm_site_equipment_command_save_equipment_booking_comment. Adequate but with clear gaps around the parameter and lifecycle.

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 0% and the description says nothing about ItemId. The property name 'ItemId' is ambiguous — it could be an equipment item ID or the comment's own ID — and the description's 'equipment booking comment' reference only loosely implies the target. Furthermore, ItemId being nullable with a null default is a notable quirk that the description does not address. With zero schema coverage, the description was obliged to compensate and did not.

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 a specific verb ('soft-deletes'), a precise resource ('equipment booking comment'), and the exact semantics (marked as deleted, excluded from reads, not physically removed). This distinguishes it from sibling hard-delete tools like clm_site_equipment_command_delete_equipment and clm_shipment_command_delete_shipment_comment, and the soft-delete qualifier adds meaning beyond the tool name's plain 'delete'.

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 explains the operation's effect but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. With siblings clm_site_equipment_command_discard_equipment_booking, clm_site_equipment_command_save_equipment_booking_comment, and clm_shipment_command_delete_shipment_comment nearby, there is no mention of when this soft-delete is preferred, whether hard deletion is possible elsewhere, or whether a deleted comment can be restored.

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