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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds a genuinely useful non-schema fact, that the edit is visible to others ('It shows as edited'). It does not explain that the prior text is replaced/lost, which is the behavior behind the destructive hint, nor anything about permissions enforcement or notifications.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the permission scope and the visible side effect. No filler, though the parenthetical scope sits before the more useful side-effect information.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission scope, and one side effect. It omits where commentId comes from and what happens to the previous text, leaving an agent to infer the mechanics of a destructive edit.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It only implies what 'text' is; 'commentId' is never mentioned, and there is no guidance on where to obtain a valid comment ID or whether text is plain/Markdown. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Edits a comment's text') and adds an authorization scope ('the user's own, or any on a board the user owns'). It does not name a sibling, but the verb+resource pairing (vs. add_comment, delete_comment, react_to_comment) is unambiguous.

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 ownership constraint ('own comment, or any on a board the user owns') implicitly tells the agent when the call will succeed, which is useful precondition guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over delete_comment/react_to_comment or what to do when the ownership condition is not met.

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