delete_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a comment' implies a destructive mutation, but it does not specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., deleting associated reactions), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 just three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a comment') without any wasted text. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling, or return values), nor does it address permissions or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more contextual detail is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'comment_id' documented as 'The ID of the comment'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 'Delete a comment' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a comment'), but fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_comment_reaction' or 'delete_item', which could cause confusion. No additional scope or specificity is provided.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid comment ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_comment' or 'get_comment'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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