Delete comment

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: permission requirements (author, case owner, or admin only), specific error codes (403, 404, 409, 403 evidence_frozen), irreversibility, impact on feed entry and case history, and the exact return value. This goes well beyond the annotations (which only state destructiveHint).

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 dense but every sentence adds value: permissions, error conditions, irreversibility, alternative tool, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and relevant constraints, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call, what to expect, error paths, prerequisites, and side effects. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description pointing to tribeunal_list_comments' uuid field. The description adds context by explaining that the commentId must be a valid UUID and referencing the error for malformed ids, reinforcing the schema without redundancy.

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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a case comment'), and further specifies the action's irreversibility. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tribeunal_update_comment, and provides detailed scope constraints.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Permanently delete a case comment') and when not to ('Use tribeunal_update_comment instead to just fix the text'). It also mentions prerequisites and conditions like unmarking evidence first with tribeunal_unmark_evidence, giving clear usage guidance.

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