delete_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Irreversible.' This warns the agent about permanence, which is essential. However, it does not mention any side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. Since it is a simple delete, the irreversibility note is a significant disclosure, but not exhaustive.

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 two short sentences that convey the action and a crucial warning. It front-loads the verb and resource, ensuring immediate comprehension without fluff. 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 delete operation with two parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and its irreversibility. It could potentially mention that the comment is removed from the card, but the name already implies this. Given its simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 provides complete coverage for both parameters (card_id and comment_id), each with descriptions. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, merely referring to 'by ID' without specifying which one. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a card comment by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment, list_comments, and update_comment, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the verb 'delete' inherently signals its purpose. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that the card must exist), though this is implied by the schema. Given the sibling tools, more explicit routing could help, but it is adequate.

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