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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the ownership restriction and the organization-configurable MCP approval gate plus always-on business workflow approvals. It does not say that the existing comment content is overwritten by the new value, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the ownership constraint front-loaded before the approval caveat. Nothing repeats the title or restates the obvious.

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?

The approval/permission context is genuinely useful and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. But for a mutation tool with a nested body parameter and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent without guidance on field semantics or partial-vs-full replacement.

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 0% across three required parameters including a nested data.content object with a 10,000-character limit. The description mentions no parameter at all — not rfiId, not commentId, not that only `content` is editable — so an agent must read the raw schema to know what to supply.

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 ("Edit your own rfi comment") and adds an ownership qualifier that separates it from a generic comment editor. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the adjacent create_rfi_comment/delete_rfi_comment siblings, but 'edit your own' makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

"Cannot impersonate another author" gives an explicit when-not condition, and the approval sentence flags a precondition worth checking before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. delete_rfi_comment for removal or create_rfi_comment for new replies).

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