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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: revision-based optimistic concurrency, conflict-handling flow, the identity/scope requirement, and idempotent retry semantics ('preserve request_id and payload on retries') that align with idempotentHint=true. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations can't carry.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and revision semantics before preconditions and retry guidance. No filler; every clause conveys actionable information.

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 annotations present and no output schema, it covers the essential operational facts: auth/scope, concurrency, conflict recovery, and retry safety. The main gap is that body and comment_id semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains expected_revision (conflict detection) and request_id (retry idempotence) well, but body and comment_id are never described, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 an own comment') with a scope constraint ('own') and a concurrency qualifier ('at its expected revision'). This clearly separates it from write_comment and retract_comment, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 clear operating context: it must be the caller's own comment, it requires the connected identity and community:comment scope, and a conflict signals that the current comment must be inspected first. No explicit when-not or alternative routing, but the preconditions are well stated.

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