Done Bear

Edit Comment

comment_edit

Idempotent

Rewrite a comment's text. Only its author may edit it, so a comment written by a teammate fails here; reply with comment_add instead. The edit replaces the body outright and the comment is marked as edited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Replacement comment text
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: author-only enforcement, outright body replacement, and the comment being marked as edited. It also aligns with idempotentHint=true since repeated edits converge on the same final body. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the authorization constraint with the fallback sibling, and the behavioral effect. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the critical edge case (author mismatch) and the operational effect of the edit. Nothing needed for correct selection or invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with body, comment_id, task, context, and workspace already documented. The description reinforces that the body is replaced outright but adds no new per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Rewrite a comment's text' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that only the author may edit, with teammate-written comments routed to comment_add. This makes the tool's role unambiguous relative to comment_add and comment_remove.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when not to use this tool ('a comment written by a teammate fails here') and names the alternative ('reply with comment_add instead'). This is direct when/when-not guidance rather than relying on the agent to infer usage from context.

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

All Done Bear tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped cleanly by resource (task, checklist, comment, label, project, attachment), so most actions have an obvious owner. The main ambiguities are task_list vs. search and checklist_done vs. checklist_edit, but the descriptions call out the intended boundaries clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant resource_verb pattern (task_add, task_edit, checklist_list, comment_remove, project_join) is consistent and predictable. A few outliers like get_context, guide, search, and task_attachment_list break the pattern, but the naming remains readable and mostly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a very large surface for an agent to choose from and exceeds the 25-tool threshold where count becomes a liability. The tools are well organized, but the repeated verb families across six resources make the total feel heavy even though each tool is plausibly justified.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, list, complete, reopen, archive, assign, and bulk operations, plus full checklist, comment, label, and attachment workflows. Notable gaps are the lack of an explicit unarchive/restore path and no label edit/delete, but these are minor enough that agents can usually work around them.

Resources

Need Help?