tokportal_delete_comment_task

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant nuance: atomicity of terminal transition and refund, authoritative credits_refunded for historical tasks, and availability during Coverage pause. It also explains the idempotency key reuse after uncertain transport results, which is beyond the generic hint.

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 four sentences, each packing essential information. It leads with the primary purpose, then details behavioral nuances and idempotency guidance. No fluff or redundancy; it's concise while being informative.

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, credit-affecting mutation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: conditions (pending, owned), atomicity, idempotency, refund amounts, behavior under paused coverage, and retry guidance. It is self-sufficient and leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explicitly instructing to reuse the same Idempotency-Key after uncertain results, and it clarifies the refund semantics that relate to the 'id' parameter. While it doesn't elaborate on each parameter individually, the guidance on the idempotency key is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource pair: 'Cancel a pending comment task.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve, dispute, or list comment tasks. It also states the scope: only owned tasks with pending status.

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 states when to use: cancel a pending owned task, and even mentions a specific edge case (when Coverage is paused). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the context is clear from the sibling list. The condition 'owned task only while its status is pending' provides concrete guidance.

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