delete_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive 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 at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'comments' are in Todoist context, doesn't cover parameters or return values, and provides minimal behavioral context. The tool needs more explanation given its complexity and potential impact.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The schema shows one parameter 'items' (an array of objects with 'id'), but the description doesn't explain what 'items' represents, what 'id' refers to, or format requirements. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('comments in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_comments' and 'update_comments' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'delete_labels' or 'delete_tasks'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing comment IDs), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_tasks' or 'update_comments'. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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