Remove interviewer comments

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information — only *your* pinned comments are affected — but says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation, or what happens to ids that don't exist.

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?

One short sentence with the operation and its two modes front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the basics. It still omits the source/format of ids and any warning about the bulk-delete case, which are the two things an agent is most likely to get wrong here.

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 the single `ids` parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does convey the key semantic (omitting ids removes all comments, otherwise only the listed ones), but never explains the expected id format or where ids can be obtained (e.g., from a board or annotate response).

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 ("Remove") and a specific resource ("your pinned comments"), and the parenthetical confirms scope. It doesn't differentiate itself from the sibling `annotate`, and it silently switches terminology across name (annotations), title (interviewer comments) and description (pinned comments), which leaves minor ambiguity about whether these are the same objects.

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 only explains the two invocation modes (all vs. specific ids); it never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `annotate`, and gives no prerequisites or caution about clearing everything. Any routing decision is left to inference.

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