delete_comment

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance the annotations cannot: this is a Loomio SOFT delete, the body is blanked, the comment leaves the thread view, and the change is restorable. That materially changes how an agent should reason about irreversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the soft-delete semantics, then the alternative. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema, but annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the rest: action, target, reversibility, and the sibling alternative. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to avoid it when updating text instead.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter. The description identifies `id` as a numeric comment identifier, which matches the schema's integer type and clarifies the target entity, but adds no format, range, or lookup detail beyond that. With one trivially typed param, this is adequate but not compensatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discard a comment by numeric `id`') and differentiates from the sibling update_comment as well as the broader delete_* family. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For a wording fix prefer update_comment' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Usage is thereby bounded rather than left to inference.

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