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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating but repeat-safe operation. The description adds the one piece of behavior not in structured data — the required write scope. However, it never explains that the destructive profile means the existing comment text is replaced, which is the operationally important detail.

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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers the essentials plus the required scope. It is slightly thin on what the update actually replaces, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 both the id and comment parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only 'by ID'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description contributes nothing new about parameter format or semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing work order comment by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling verbs create_, get_, delete_, and list_ work_order_comment. It stops short of stating what distinguishes an update from e.g. the bulk_update sibling, but the purpose itself 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?

It states a permission prerequisite ('Requires work_order_comments:write scope') but gives no when-to-use context, no conditions under which an agent should prefer this over create_work_order_comment or bulk_update, and no guidance on what state must already exist.

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