figma_delete_comment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: not whether deletion is permanent, not whether replies in a thread are removed, not whether the caller must own the comment or hold edit permission, and not what is returned. 'Delete' implies mutation but the risk profile is left to inference.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the prerequisite second. Every clause 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 destructive single-target mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on consequences and permissions even though the parameters themselves are fully covered by the schema.

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 100% and both fields (fileUrl default behavior, comment_id source) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (comment) plus the identifier used to target it, with the containing file scope. It is immediately distinguishable from figma_get_comments and figma_post_comment in the sibling list.

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 to figma_get_comments as the way to obtain a comment ID before calling. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g., thread replies, permissions), so it stops short of full guidance.

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