Destroy Comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation mutates community state and requires confirm=true, which is useful but largely duplicates the confirm parameter's schema description.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant filler. Brevity is a virtue here, though the second sentence re-packages what the schema already says.

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, non-idempotent delete with no output schema, the description omits what is destroyed (the comment and any replies), whether it is recoverable, and error behavior. An agent lacks enough to call this confidently beyond the confirm flag.

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 67%: the account parameter is well documented as a credential selector and confirm is documented in the schema. The description echoes the confirm requirement but adds nothing about comment_id or whether the deletion is permanent, so it does not compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

"Destroy Comment" simply restates the tool title and, implicitly, the name delete_comment. It never states the resource being acted on precisely (a single comment identified by comment_id) or what happens to it, so it reads as a tautology rather than a purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as delete_post, delete_topic, or update_comment. The only usage hint is the confirm=true requirement, which is a gating rule rather than a when-to-use criterion.

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