delete_comment

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds significant context beyond the annotations by stating that the deleted text is returned for restoration, which informs the agent about reversibility. While it doesn't discuss permissions or side effects, this extra detail is useful and consistent with the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return behavior and parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or filler. It is efficient and scannable.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description covers the essential purpose and parameters, but lacks broader context such as typical use cases, prerequisite conditions, or implications of deletion beyond restoration text. For a destructive operation, a note about irreversibility (even with text) would improve completeness, though not critical.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that issue_id can be an ID or URL, and that instance is optional. These details are not present in the schema and help the agent pass correct values.

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 'Delete' with a resource 'comment from a YouTrack issue', and additionally notes it returns the deleted text for restoration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_article_comment or delete_work_item, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions that would make another tool preferable. The only context is the parameter list, which implies usage but does not explicitly instruct. This is a clear gap for an AI agent deciding between delete_comment and other deletion tools.

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