update-comments

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the batch context ('multiple') and clarifies that existing content is replaced with 'new content'. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying what is changed, which is valuable for an agent invoking the tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb ('Update'), the resource, and the scope. It is concise, with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and the schema plus annotations cover the essential details. The description captures the batch nature and the replacement of content. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or error handling, but for a straightforward update tool this is acceptable.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing clear meaning for 'id' and 'content'. The description's mention of 'new content' aligns with the 'content' parameter but adds no additional nuance beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('update'), the resource ('existing comments'), and the scope ('multiple'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add-comments' (create) and 'find-comments' (retrieve) by specifying 'update' and 'existing'. This is a specific verb+resource construction that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 that it should be used when updating existing comments, as opposed to adding new ones, by using the word 'existing'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling list includes 'add-comments' and 'update-tasks', the tool's specific purpose is clear but not contrasted directly.

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