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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuine, non-obvious authorship permission rule. It does not clarify whether the text is fully replaced vs appended, nor does it resolve the tension between the required idempotency_key and idempotentHint=false.

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 the operation front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 8 parameters, nested override objects, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of the UUID identifiers, workspace scoping, and idempotency semantics that an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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?

With 8 parameters at 50% schema coverage, the description needs to carry more weight. It only implies the `text` parameter via "comment's text" and says nothing about the `id` vs `commentId` distinction, `workspace_id`/`brand_id` scoping, or the `body`/`query` override escape hatches.

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") and resource ("comment's text"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling verbs create_post_comment, delete_post_comment, and list_post_comments. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous from the verb+resource pairing.

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?

"Only the author can edit their own comments" is a useful prerequisite/authorization constraint that tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over reply-to or re-create patterns, and no note on what happens if the constraint is violated.

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