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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), destructive (destructiveHint=true), idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds the required authorization scope ('project_comments:write'), which is useful beyond annotations, but it does not clarify partial-update behavior, which fields are replaced, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and target, followed immediately by the authorization prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 three-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the operation, lookup key, and required scope. The main remaining gap is partial-update semantics, but the structured fields already cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents id, content, and parent_id. The description only reinforces that the target is identified by ID; it adds no semantics for content or parent_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing project comment') with a clear lookup key ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as create_project_comment, delete_project_comment, and get_project_comment without ambiguity.

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 description implies usage by saying 'Update an existing project comment by ID' and adds a prerequisite scope requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like update_asset_comment, update_work_order_comment, or create_project_comment, nor does it state exclusions.

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