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

Discloses behavior that no annotation or schema field carries: the operation is asynchronous, the immediate return is only { accepted: true }, and the real outcome arrives via comment.edited / comment.edit_failed webhooks. This is exactly the information an agent needs to avoid treating the response as final, and it complements rather than repeats the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the platform limit, then the async/return contract. Every sentence contributes 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by explaining the accepted-response plus webhook result flow, and it covers the platform support boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented ('New comment text', 'Post ID', 'Comment ID', 'Profile ID'). The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints beyond that, so the 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 (edit), a specific resource (comment text), and scopes it to comments the caller published, which distinguishes it from comments_create, comments_delete, and comments_get in the sibling list. The platform restriction further narrows intent unambiguously.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage with 'Supported on Facebook and YouTube only', so an agent knows when this tool is applicable versus platform-agnostic siblings. It does not name an alternative route for unsupported platforms, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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