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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds real context beyond them: author-only authorization and the `tasks:write` scope requirement. It does not disclose whether `text` replaces or appends to the existing body, which matters for a destructive update.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the authorization rule, then the scope requirement. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs to know before calling: who is allowed and what credential scope is required. The remaining hole is the semantics of `text`/`mentions`, which keeps it from a 5.

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 67%, with `text` and `mentions` entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing about parameters, so it neither compensates for those gaps nor clarifies whether text is a full replacement or a patch — baseline 3 fits the partial coverage.

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 and resource ('Update an existing comment') that clearly distinguishes it from pm_create_task_comment and pm_delete_task_comment by verb alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but an agent can pick it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Adds a genuine precondition ('Only the original author may edit') and the required API scope, which helps decide if a call will succeed. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus pm_create_task_comment or a reaction tool, and no fallback behavior when the caller is not the author.

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