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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that only the author can edit, but does not cover other aspects like idempotency, failure modes, or whether edits are reversible. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the key constraint and source of the id. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior, the author restriction, and how to obtain the id. It does not explain return values, but none are expected, and no output schema exists. Minor gaps like error handling are acceptable for this complexity.

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%, and the schema already describes both parameters clearly. The description adds little beyond referencing get_issue for the comment id, which is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 applies.

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.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_comment (creating) and edit_issue (editing an issue), and the author constraint adds further specificity.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite by pointing to get_issue for obtaining the comment id and mentions the author-only restriction, which guides when this tool applies. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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