Bad description, because it removes Communism from a key feature of most modern Communist movements: the historicity of it. In short, Communism is not this imagined society that we reduce to a set of fixed policies, because that would put us on the side of early 19th century socialists/communists (the "utopians") who believed it was necessary to create a blueprint for a better society and implement it.
Nowadays, we're more inclined to the idea these societies fall and arise "naturally" according to the the development of productive forces in a society. One mode of production becomes the dominant one because it better suits the available productive forces, with it so does an economic class, and once it develops them further they open the ways for a new arrangement. In the meantime, new techniques and tools of production and distribution are developed, and so are political institutions of management, and this is where things like money and the state come into being, and Communism would simply replace them, gradually and historically, with different mechanics. The way you phrase it makes it sound like we want to abolish those by decree, which is enough to make anyone roll an eye and walk away.
You should add something the transitory period to Communism, since after the beginning of the 20th century Marxist literature discusses "Socialism" mostly refering to a lower stage of Communism.
This is kind of wrong. "State" has a political and class character, "government" doesn't. When you put it like that, it makes it sound like we want to do away with the government in principle, get rid of any means of public management, public coordination, laws, etc.
Refering to commodities that you own as "personal property" will only bring further confusion, because Marx occasionally used the term to describe a type of private property. IMO there is absolutely no need to call private property (in the sense of things you own) something else, just say that this is not what we're talking about when we say Private Property in the context of economics and social science.
Bad descriptions that, again, say nothing of the historical character of class society. By that description, Proletariat and Bourgeoisie could have existed thousands of years ago, and they're as class divisions themselves, instead of as old as capitalism.
Your response is okay, but you need to make it clear that most of the "deaths under communist regimes"
are attributed to famines and things like that, because most people still think they refer to deliberate killings through executions. Then you explain why, by the same token, capitalism still kills millions a year and so on.