notion_delete_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ownership constraint and the 404 error for non-owned comments, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly mention permanence or reversibility of the deletion, though this is a typical implication of a delete operation.

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 extremely concise, with two clearly separated sentences: one for the purpose/behavior and one for parameter sourcing. No redundant information or filler text exists, making it easy to parse and act on.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, an output schema (though not shown), and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, a key behavioral constraint, and parameter sourcing. It could mention what the response looks like or explicitly note that deletion is permanent, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no description for the single parameter, and coverage is 0%. The description compensates by telling the agent where to source the comment_id (from notion_get_comments or notion_add_comment). This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema type, but it does not elaborate on the expected format or validation of the ID.

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 deletes a comment, with the specific constraint that it must have been created by this integration. This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like notion_add_comment and notion_update_comment. The mention of Notion returning 404 for others further clarifies the exact scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (only for comments created by this integration) and when not to (for comments created by anyone else, as they will 404). It also guides the agent on where to obtain a valid comment_id (from notion_get_comments or notion_add_comment). Explicit alternatives are not listed, but no other delete-comment tool exists among the siblings.

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