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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous, it returns only { accepted: true }, and completion arrives via the comment.edited / comment.edit_failed webhooks. The annotations only declare it non-read-only and idempotent; the async contract and webhook names are exactly the context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the action and the async/webhook consequence are front-loaded in order of importance.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape and how the real result is delivered, plus the platform restriction. For a 4-param async mutation this covers everything an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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 post_id, comment_id, profile_id and body are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-type, or body-length nuance 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 and resource ('Edit the text of a comment') plus an ownership scope ('you published'), which cleanly separates it from comments_create, comments_delete, comments_hide, and comments_like among the siblings. An agent can route to it 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 a real usage constraint — 'Supported on Facebook and YouTube only' — which prevents calling it on unsupported platforms. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. comments_delete for removal), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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