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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding the auth rule and the side-effect note 'Editar no vuelve a notificar'. It stops short of saying the previous body is overwritten/lost, which is the main destructive consequence the annotations flag.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the authorization, id-source and notification constraints. No wasted text.

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 annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, permissions, id sourcing and notification behavior. Adding an explicit note that the prior body is replaced would close the remaining gap against destructiveHint=true.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it explains that body is markdown with mention support and that commentId values come from list_comments. Only the id format/precondition is left implicit, which is a small gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Edita el body ... de un comentario') and scopes the editable surface to the body, noting it is markdown and supports mentions. That distinguishes it cleanly from add_comment and delete_comment in the sibling list without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the authorization condition (only the author / the key owner) and where the ids come from (list_comments). It lacks an explicit contrast with delete_comment or add_comment, but the usage context is clear enough to act on.

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