delete_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Delete'. It does not reveal that deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, any cascading effects, or what happens to associated data. The minimal phrase offers no transparency beyond the obvious destructive intent.

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 only two words, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. It omits necessary context that could help an agent use or select the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the lone phrase contributes little beyond what the name already says.

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 no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention irreversibility, required issue/comment context, or any behavioral notes. An agent on the edge between delete_comment and update_comment or get_comment gets no guidance on the consequences of the call.

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 100%: both required parameters (id and issueIdOrKey) have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter context, but per the baseline for full schema coverage, this is acceptable. No enum or nested object complexities exist.

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 'Delete comment' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'delete_comment'. It states a verb and resource but adds no specificity or differentiation beyond what the name already conveys. There is no mention of which comment, what context, or how it differs from sibling comment tools.

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 such as update_comment, get_comment, or add_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, 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.