delete_article_comment

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context by stating 'Returns text for restoration', which tells the agent the deletion is reversible/recoverable. It also clarifies the 'instance' parameter is optional.

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, with a clear first sentence and a compact arguments list. It avoids redundant phrases and front-loads the primary action. The inclusion of parameter descriptions is justified given the sparse schema, though it could be tightened.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but noted) and annotations that already cover safety (destructive, non-read-only), the description provides the key behavioral detail (restoration text) and parameter clarification. It lacks usage guidance relative to siblings, but for a straightforward deletion tool with good annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief but meaningful explanation for each parameter: article_id can be an article ID or database ID, comment_id is the comment ID, and instance is optional. While it lacks details on format or defaults, it gives the essential semantics needed to invoke the tool.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'article comment', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_comment (which likely targets issue comments) and aligns with delete_article_comment's name. It also notes the return value for restoration, adding specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_comment or update_article_comment. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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