delete_comment

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

Given that annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, the description still adds value by requiring user confirmation before calling. This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent handle the operation safely.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core action, the destructive warning, and the required parameters with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with three self-explanatory string parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering read-only/destructive hints, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The confirmation instruction is a valuable addition.

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 explicitly names all three required parameters (projectId, itemId, commentId), which is helpful. However, it adds little semantic detail beyond what the parameter names and required array already imply, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action ('Delete a comment') and a clear resource ('an item thread'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes it from siblings like update_comment or add_comment by focusing on deletion.

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 clearly signals that the tool is destructive and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before calling, which is strong usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive warning provides enough guidance for appropriate use.

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