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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the comment must belong to the user, the page cannot be archived, and the editor role is required. It does not explain what happens to the prior text or the returned result, but the added constraints are meaningful.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the archived-page exclusion, and the permission requirement. It is front-loaded and has no wasted wording.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and useful annotations, the description covers the essential target, restriction, and authorization requirements. It does not discuss failure cases such as a missing comment or insufficient role, but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, and the schema already documents both text and commentId. The description clarifies that the operation changes text on an existing page comment, which gives some implicit meaning to both parameters. This is the baseline case where the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it changes the text of a page comment. It also scopes the target to the user's own page comments. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling such as edit_comment or delete_page_comment, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives clear usage context and prerequisites: the page must not be archived, and the caller needs the editor role on the project. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for cases where those conditions are not met. The guidance is therefore useful but not fully routing.

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