Update issue note

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description's 'Replace the body' aligns with these. It doesn't add further behavioral details like permission requirements or whether existing formatting is overwritten, but it doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, immediately states action and object. Front-loaded and succinct. No wasted words, but it is extremely terse.

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 simple replacement operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but does not mention side effects, permissions, or how to locate note_id. It covers the essential action without extra context.

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 has descriptions for project and issue_iid (50% coverage), but note_id and body have no descriptions. The description only implicitly explains body, and provides no guidance on note_id or body format. Since coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 'Replace the body of an existing GitLab issue comment' uses a clear verb (Replace) and specific resource (existing GitLab issue comment). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, and update_merge_request_note by naming the exact action and scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as create_issue_note or delete_issue_note. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist) or contexts (e.g., editing invalidates replies).

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