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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine constraint not present in the annotations: only comments you own can be edited, which is an authorization fact the agent needs.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the ID provenance second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the mutation/safety profile. Purpose, ownership scope, and ID source are all present; only the replace-vs-append semantics of "rewrites" is left to inference.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "Ids come from get_item" merely restates the comment_id schema description and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 (rewrites) and resource (one of your own comments), and the ownership constraint separates it from the sibling delete_comment/add_comment set. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

"Ids come from get_item" gives a concrete provenance prerequisite for the required comment_id, which is useful usage context. It never states when to prefer this over delete_comment or add_comment, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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