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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit by specifying exactly what is destroyed: "The new body replaces the old one entirely." It further discloses the authorization requirement (author-only), the content format (Markdown), and the visibility consequence to other users including public viewers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, and each carries distinct information (purpose, input lineage, replacement semantics, permissions/visibility). Slightly redundant that both the description and the schema state the body fully replaces the old one.

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 output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: what is overwritten, who may call it, and who sees the result. It does not mention failure modes (invalid commentId, non-authored comment) or what the tool returns on success, a minor gap given the operation's simplicity.

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 100%, so commentId, body, intent, and llm_model are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that commentId comes from createComment and that body is Markdown replacement text, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Rewrite a comment you previously left on a Jam") plus scope (own comments only), which separates it cleanly from createComment and deleteComment in the sibling list. The parenthetical purpose ("correct or extend its own note instead of stacking a follow-up comment") makes the distinction unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance: correct or extend an existing note rather than posting a follow-up. It also states a hard eligibility constraint ("You can only edit comments you authored"). It never explicitly names createComment or deleteComment as the alternative for other cases, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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