tokportal_delete_comment_task

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. It explains the atomic commit and refund mechanism, idempotency behavior, the distinction between current and historical task refunds, and the rationale for availability during paused Coverage. This is exemplary transparency for a credit-mutating operation.

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 compact yet information-dense, with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds essential context—behavioral guarantees, credit refund details, availability edge case, and retry guidance. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the action, constraints, behavioral nuances, idempotency, error handling advice, and edge cases. There is no missing information for a competent agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the idempotency key reuse pattern beyond the schema's description, and reinforces the 'owned task' constraint. However, it does not detail the format or constraints of the 'id' parameter beyond the schema, which is fine given high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('pending comment task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tokportal_create_comment_tasks, tokportal_get_comment_task, tokportal_approve_comment_task, and tokportal_dispute_comment_task. It explicitly states the action, the resource, and the required state ('pending').

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 extensive when-to-use guidance: it cancels owned tasks only, only while status is pending, and remains available when Coverage is paused. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context implies this is the only cancellation tool among siblings, making the guidance clear.

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