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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: optimistic concurrency via expectedUpdatedAt, a comment_changed event that forces a reload, and idempotency-key semantics for safe retries. It does not spell out the failure mode when expectedUpdatedAt mismatches, but the reload instruction effectively conveys the conflict story.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the mutation and the visibility constraint, then the concurrency and idempotency rules. The '1-10,000 characters' clause largely restates the schema's minLength/maxLength, a small redundancy, but nothing else is padding.

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 six-required-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts an agent would otherwise get wrong: ownership, visibility, the event that invalidates local state, and retry safety. Remaining gaps are minor — no statement of what a successful edit returns, and projectId/groupId are still unexplained.

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 all six required parameters, and it meaningfully explains only three: body (markdown), expectedUpdatedAt (provenance and conflict semantics), and requestId (reuse rule). projectId, groupId, and commentId are only indirectly implied by 'your own ... comment' and get_error_group, leaving half the required inputs undocumented.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('your own internal error comment or status note'), and the ownership/visibility scoping ('your own', 'visible to project members only') immediately distinguishes it from add_error_comment, delete_error_comment, and update_ticket_comment. An agent can tell what it mutates and whose comments are eligible without opening the schema.

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 concrete preconditions and recovery paths: expectedUpdatedAt must come from get_error_group or get_error_comment, and the agent must reload on comment_changed; it also constrains requestId reuse to identical retries. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for the non-error-comment case (e.g. update_ticket_comment), so routing between the two is left implicit.

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