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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important authorization behavior: only the author can edit. However, it does not mention what happens if the comment is not found, whether the update replaces the entire body, or any response details.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. 'Edit a comment' front-loads the purpose, and the author restriction earns its place as crucial usage context.

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 update tool, the description is adequate but missing details about error handling, response format, and whether the body replaces the entire comment. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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?

The schema covers 'body' with a description, but 'commentId' has no description. The tool description does not explain either parameter or add meaning beyond their names. With schema coverage at 50%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states 'Edit a comment' with a specific verb and resource. It is obviously distinct from sibling tools like add_comment or update_document, though it does not explicitly name them. It misses the top score because it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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 includes a usage constraint ('Only the comment's author can edit it') but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_comment or update_task. There is no guidance on selecting this tool over other update tools.

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