ghl_project_delete_task_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/indexHint, but the description adds authorization semantics (author-only, 403), the exact response payload `{ "success": true }` with no id, and the cascade warning ("the docs do not describe what a delete cascades to — treat every delete as destructive"). That is substantial context beyond the structured fields.

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 tool-specific content is front-loaded and tight, but the leading paragraph about hierarchy, lexorank position, recurring tasks, and RBAC-filtered batch-get has nothing to do with deleting a comment and bloats the definition.

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 3-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers authorization, the return shape, and cascade risk — everything needed to call it safely. The only gap is that the irrelevant preamble displaces nothing essential, so it is complete but not maximally efficient.

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 taskId/commentId/locationId are already documented in the schema. The description restates the path parameters but adds no format or edge-case meaning (e.g., how locationId behaves for APP vs OAuth channels is only in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Delete A Comment") plus the exact endpoint DELETE /projects/tasks/{taskId}/comments/{commentId}. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings ghl_project_update_task_comment, list_task_comments, and create_task_comment.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ("403 unless the caller is the comment author") and a postcondition (deleted comments no longer appear in Get Task Comments), which tells the agent when this call will fail and how to verify. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools, keeping it short of a 5.

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