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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: changing visibility can expose feedback to clients, and setting archived=false restores rather than deletes. These warnings help the agent anticipate side effects not encoded in the annotations.

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 with zero redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the two most consequential side effects (visibility exposure, restore behavior) are stated efficiently. Every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with an output schema, this is fairly complete: it covers the primary behavior, the main risk, and the archive restore nuance. Idempotency and project context are already covered by the schema and annotations, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the word 'replacement' for tags, which aligns with the schema's 'complete replacement list,' and hints at visibility semantics. This is marginal added value beyond the schema, 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.

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

The description states a specific action ('Set') and enumerates the target fields (status, priority, tags, visibility, archive state), which clearly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling update_comment_status. However, it never explicitly names the resource as a comment, relying on the tool name and schema for that.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Even though a specialized sibling update_comment_status exists, the description never tells the agent when to prefer this generic update over the specialized one, forcing the agent to infer the decision from field names.

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