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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the write-scope requirement, which the annotations do not cover, but says nothing about whether the update is a partial patch or replacement, or what happens to fields not supplied.

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 resource, then the precondition. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool this is close to adequate, and the scope requirement is a useful addition. However, the schema marks comment as optional without explanation, and the description doesn't clarify whether omitting it is a no-op or an error, which leaves a real ambiguity for the caller.

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 id (UUID of the comment) and comment (text) are documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the schema's id field and adds no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update), resource (work order comment) and the lookup key (by ID). It is clearly distinguishable from update_work_order and update_project_comment among the many update_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name those as alternatives.

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 notes the required scope (work_order_comments:write), which is a real precondition, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus create_work_order_comment, delete_work_order_comment, or update_work_order. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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