Edita o texto de um comentário ou resposta PUBLICADO pelo canal conectado (corrigir um erro sem apagar e repostar, o que perderia as curtidas e o encadeamento). Só funciona em comentário de autoria do próprio canal. Custa 50 unidades da cota.
Bulk support: accepts comment_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| account | No | ||
| comment_id | Yes | ||
| comment_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the valid annotations, it discloses the 50-unit quota cost, the ownership restriction, and the batch behavior via `comment_ids`. It also explains the benefit of editing over re-interactive: adding likes, but not fully. It does not explain auth details or error behavior, but the added behavioral context is valuable.
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 short sentences plus a batch note. Every sentence carries important information: purpose, scope, cost, and bulk behavior. 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?
Given the small mutation, the description covers purpose, validation constraint, cost, and batch. It leaves out return/error semantics and the precise parameter relationship, but it is largely enough for an agent to know what the tool does and when to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. Only `comment_ids` survivor: batch. The `text`, `comment_id`, and `account` parameters are left to be inferred from their names, and the relationship between `comment_id` and `comment_ids` is not explained.
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-resurgy action: edit the text of a published comment or reply belonging to the connected channel. It clearly positions itself as a correction tool and distinguishes it from delete, post, reply, and moderation siblings.
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 real usage conditions: it is only for comments published by the connected channel and is meant for fixing errors without deleting and reposting. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the conditions and exclusions are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.