comment_delete

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by revealing that the row is retained for the audit trail, is hidden from listing/reading operations, and can be restored. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context that annotations alone do not capture.

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 with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the key consequence and the recovery path. 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?

Given the simple 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation's effect, visibility changes, audit implications, and reversibility. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'reason' parameter by noting it stays in the audit trail, which deepens the agent's understanding of what to supply and why.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('a comment'), and clarifies that this is a soft delete with concrete visibility consequences (hidden from comment_list and task_get). It clearly distinguishes this from comment_add and comment_restore even without exploring schemas.

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 says to use this to retract a comment that is wrong or stale, and names the recovery alternative ('Reversible with comment_restore'). This gives the agent clear selection criteria between the delete and restore operations.

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