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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the ownership constraint ('your own'), which is useful auth context, but it does not explain what non-idempotence means here or whether the replacement is reversible/history-tracked.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb and scope appear immediately with nothing extraneous.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the write/safety profile and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of guidance versus edit_comment, but that is minor given the tool's narrow scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including that body replaces the old text. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate. It does implicitly narrow the id scope to solutions, though the schema says 'solution or comment id'.

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 ('Replace the text') and a precise resource scope ('your own solution'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_comment and edit_problem by resource, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The agent is left to infer that edit_comment handles comments, but the description never says so. Only the implied context of 'solution' supplies any usage signal.

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