Delete an issue comment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific HTTP method (DELETE) and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 very short and to the point, consisting of two sentences. It is concise without being overly terse. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability, but the current form is acceptable.

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 that the tool is a delete operation with nested parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, any side effects, or the structure of the response. While the output schema exists, the description should still provide some context about the operation's behavior. The missing parameter descriptions further reduce completeness.

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?

The input schema has 50% description coverage: the body parameter has a description, but the required path parameters (id, commentId) lack any description. The overall description does not elaborate on these path parameters, leaving their meaning ambiguous. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions 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 explicitly states 'Delete an issue comment', which is a clear verb+resource. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, further reinforcing the purpose. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_comments or pc_post_issues_by_id_comments.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent must rely solely on the tool name to infer usage.

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