Comment Delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description never states whether deletion is permanent, whether replies are orphaned or removed, what permissions are required, or how failures behave. The output schema only covers return values, not action-side behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a destructive tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions. The calibration treats such insufficiency as a conciseness/structure failure, not a virtue.

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 operation with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves critical context unstated: when to use it, reversibility, permissions, and parameter format. The presence of an output schema only excuses explaining return values, not the missing action-side context.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the single parameter. It does not clarify what comment_id expects (comment cid, UUID, etc.) or any constraints, so with low coverage the description fails to compensate.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('a comment'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no scope details (permanence, reply handling) and does not differentiate this from siblings like comment_unapprove or comment_update, leaving it at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. An agent must infer entirely from the tool name when deletion is appropriate versus unpublishing (comment_unapprove) or editing (comment_update).

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