update-comments

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, and idempotentHint: false. The description simply says 'update' and does not add context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or that content will be overwritten. Since annotations cover the core behavioral traits, the description adds minimal extra transparency, warranting a score of 3.

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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without superfluous detail. It is well-structured and directly to the point, making it highly efficient for both human and AI understanding.

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?

The description provides enough context for the tool's primary function, but it does not mention any return value or output. Given that an output schema exists (context signal indicates true), explaining return values is not required. The description adequately covers the action and purpose, though it omits any edge-case behavior or prerequisites, resulting in a score of 4.

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 fully defines the 'comments' parameter with 'id' and 'content'. The description adds semantic clarity by specifying 'existing' comments and 'new content', which clarify that the 'id' refers to an existing comment and 'content' is the replacement text. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions, earning a score of 4.

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 'Update multiple existing comments with new content' clearly states the action (update), the target (comments), and the specificity (multiple existing comments with new content). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like add-comments or find-comments by indicating it modifies existing comments rather than creating or retrieving them.

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 implicitly signals usage for updating existing comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The combination of the verb 'update' and the noun 'comments' makes the purpose clear, and the sibling list includes add-comments, so differentiation is implied. However, no explicit 'use this when' guidance is provided, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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