fc delete comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the cascading recount, the media cleanup hook, the fact that hooks/announcements/automations can affect other people, and the no-retry policy. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a non-idempotent destructive call.

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 action and its side effects are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the confirmation/no-retry warning follows. The controller and route-source lines are developer-facing provenance that consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral consequences (recount, media cleanup, downstream hooks) and the invocation caveat (confirm, no retries). Only the authorization precondition for deleting a given comment is left unstated.

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%, so account, confirm, feed_id and comment_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes a comment') and immediately enumerates the cascading side effects (recount on post, media cleanup hook). An agent can distinguish it from fc_update_comment and fc_create_comment without opening any schema.

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?

It flags that 'Explicit local confirmation is required' and that there are 'No retries', which is actionable invocation guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what precondition (comment ownership, permissions) makes deletion valid. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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