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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization model (only the bot's own comments are editable) and the mention re-dispatch behavior, which explains that notifications fire only for newly mentioned users — a non-obvious side effect an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the permission boundary comes immediately after the core action and the notification nuance is last. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 eligibility and mention side effects well. It stops short of stating what happens on a rejected edit (error vs silent no-op) or what the call returns, which is a minor residual gap.

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 coverage is 50%: commentId is documented in the schema, while content is only constrained by length bounds. The description maps 'body' to content but adds no format, length, or replacement-vs-merge semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so 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) and resource (body of a comment) along with a scope constraint (agent-authored only) that immediately separates it from create_comment and delete_comment. An agent can identify the target 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?

The description makes clear when this tool applies (the integration's own bot comments) and when it does not (human-authored comments are off-limits). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the exclusion rule is stated plainly enough for correct selection.

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