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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real permission constraint (author-only) and the length cap, which is meaningful. It omits what happens on rejection, whether the prior text is recoverable, and what a successful call returns.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the constraint and the permission caveat.

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 edit with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is edited, the limit, and the authorization gate. Only the success/failure outcome is left unstated, which is minor.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 4096 limit already present in the schema and only hints at where commentId comes from.

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 ('Edits a comment's text') with a scope constraint (max 4096 characters). It is clearly distinguishable from edit_issue or create_comment by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

Gives a concrete precondition: only the comment's own author can edit it, and it routes the agent to list_issue_comments / canManage to verify that before calling. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance beyond that, but the usage condition is actionable.

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