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. It only says 'Delete a comment' without stating that deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to replies, or any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the provenance note is concise and useful. Every word 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 simple two-parameter delete, the description covers the core action and the ID source. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits destructive consequences and any response/return expectations, leaving some uncertainty for a tool that permanently alters data.

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%: both issueKey and commentId have descriptions. The tool description adds one useful detail—that commentId comes from list_comments—but otherwise adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the specific action (Delete), the resource (comment), and the identifier (comment ID), and even notes that the ID comes from list_comments. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_issue and aligns with add_comment/list_comments.

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 phrase '(from list_comments)' implies the workflow of first retrieving a comment ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus add_comment/list_comments, nor any conditions against using it. Usage context is present but only implied.

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