Edit a comment you authored. Only works on comments the calling agent created. Content must be 1-10000 chars. Use this to correct a previously posted status note or fix a typo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Replacement content, 1-10000 chars. Plain text is formatted as in create_comment: blank lines separate paragraphs, "- " and "1. " lines become lists. | |
| commentId | Yes | Id of the comment to edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / content / descriptionPrevious value: -"Replacement content, 1-10000 chars."New value: +"Replacement content, 1-10000 chars. Plain text is formatted as in create_comment: blank lines separate paragraphs, \"- \" and \"1. \" lines become lists."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint ("only works on comments the calling agent created") and the 1-10000 char bound, both of which are behavioral facts not present in the annotations. It does not say what happens to the prior content or whether a failed ownership check errors, so it is not 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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, with the strongest constraint (you can only edit your own comments) placed early. Every sentence adds a distinct fact: capability, restriction, validation, and use case.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers capability, ownership restriction, length validation, and intent. It omits error behavior for non-owned comments and whether the edit supersedes prior content entirely, which are minor given idempotent/destructive annotations already signal overwrite semantics.
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% and both parameters are fully documented there, including the formatting rules, so the schema carries the load. The description only repeats the same 1-10000 char bound and adds no new parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Edit a comment") and immediately scopes it to comments the calling agent authored, which separates it from create_comment and list_comments. An agent knows exactly which object class is touched 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?
It gives positive usage contexts ("correct a previously posted status note or fix a typo"), which is clear guidance on when to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative for the excluded case (someone else's comment, or a comment that shouldn't be edited at all), so it is strong but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.