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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It reveals the optional fields and an attachment format hint, but does not state permissions, whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects—important gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with the core action and lookup key front-loaded. Every phrase adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an underspecified schema, the description covers the basic operation and optional fields but omits prerequisites, partial-update behavior, return information, and permission requirements. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema is effectively empty (additionalProperties true, no defined properties), so the description must supply parameter meaning. It names the lookup id and four optional fields, including type hints for text ('plain text') and attachment ('JSON array string'), though is_pinned and is_spam types and semantics are left implicit.

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 ('Update a comment') plus the lookup key ('by id'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like comment_create or comment_delete, relying on the tool name for that differentiation.

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 implies this tool is used to modify an existing comment by id, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives to consider. An agent gets no explicit routing help beyond the tool name.

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