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

Annotations already declare destructive=true to an editing tool, but the description adds substantive context the annotations do not: the optimistic-concurrency contract via expectedUpdatedAt, the stale_comment conflict signal, the no-file-upload restriction, and the precise rule for reusing requestId. It does not spell out who is authorized (beyond 'your own') or what happens to the previous body, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the precondition and idempotency rules. Every sentence carries operational 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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers concurrency, the conflict error, idempotency-key semantics, and an input restriction. The remaining gap is that it never states the authoritative ownership/permission constraint or which field is actually being edited, both of which an agent must guess.

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 carries the burden and it explains only 2 of 6 required parameters (expectedUpdatedAt's provenance in get_ticket, and requestId's identical-retry rule). body, commentId, cardId, and projectId are left to name inference, which is partially adequate but leaves real gaps on an undocumented schema.

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 verb and resource ('Edit your own internal ticket comment') and narrows scope with 'your own' and 'internal', which implicitly separates it from add_ticket_comment and delete_ticket_comment. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being routed 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?

It gives concrete preconditions and recovery paths: fetch the timestamp via get_ticket, and reload on stale_comment. That is real when-to-use context. However, it never states when to choose this over add_ticket_comment or why the edit path exists versus deleting and re-adding.

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