tokportal_delete_comment_task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the atomic commit of terminal transition and refund, notes that credits_refunded is authoritative for historical tasks, clarifies the refund amount for current tasks (1 credit), and explains why cancellation works during paused Coverage. This goes well beyond the annotations, providing a thorough behavioral model.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with front-loaded purpose and key conditions. Each sentence adds essential information: scope, state constraint, atomic behavior, historical nuance, coverage exception, and idempotency guidance. There is no fluff, but it could be slightly more streamlined by merging the coverage and retry points into a single sentence without losing clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (credit mutation, idempotency, state-dependent behavior) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: what happens atomically, refund semantics, and retry safety. However, it omits details about the return value (e.g., confirmation of cancellation or updated task status), which would improve completeness for an agent that needs to verify success.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency key reuse guidance and the context of credit refund, which is not detailed in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (UUID format), missing an opportunity to reinforce the ownership constraint. Still, it adds meaningful context above the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Cancel a pending comment task') and specifies the resource ('comment task'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like tokportal_approve_comment_task and tokportal_dispute_comment_task by focusing on cancellation, and further clarifies scope by noting it only cancels an 'owned task' in 'pending' status, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Cancel a pending comment task' with the constraint 'only while its status is pending.' It also states when not to use it by implication (only owned tasks) and mentions an important context where it remains available ('when Coverage is paused'). Additionally, it advises on retry behavior with the Idempotency-Key, helping the agent decide to reuse it after uncertain transport results.

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