delete_task_comment

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious rule: deletion is restricted to own comments and fails otherwise. This goes beyond what the input schema shows and is critical for the agent to avoid errors. It does not mention other behaviors like permanence, but the ownership rule is the most significant trait.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint in bold. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is perfectly concise for a simple 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 simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the essential context: what it does and the critical ownership restriction. It could mention how to obtain the comment_id or what success returns, but those are inferable from siblings and output schema. Overall, it is adequate and not missing major gaps.

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 does not explain the 'comment_id' parameter. The parameter name is self-explanatory (an integer ID), but the description fails to provide any additional meaning or context about where the ID comes from or how it should be used. Since coverage is low, the description should have compensated but does 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '댓글(멘션)을 삭제한다' (delete a comment/mention). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools like add_task_comment and update_task_comment make the distinction clear. The mention of '멘션' adds clarity.

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 an explicit usage constraint: only comments written by the user can be deleted, otherwise an error occurs. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Still, the ownership prerequisite is valuable guidance.

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