Set comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior and the blockId detaching mechanism (empty string/null), which is useful. However, it does not mention what happens if the comment id does not exist, whether there are permission requirements, or any error behavior. These gaps leave the agent partially uninformed.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Update an existing comment'), states the target and id, and lists the changeable fields along with the detach behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly: what fields can change, the partial-update behavior, and blockId detaching. It lacks return-format details, but with no output schema defined, this is not critical. Slightly more detail on error conditions would raise it further.

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?

The input schema already covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the partial-update semantics and the special detach convention for blockId, which is not fully inferable from the parameter descriptions alone.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing comment on a target by id, enumerating the mutable fields (text, position, size, minimized, blockId). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like add_comment and remove_comment.

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 implies usage for modifying existing comments ('existing comment') and the partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), but it does not explicitly contrast with adding or removing comments. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, leaving alternatives to inference from siblings.

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