github_gists_update_comment

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

No annotations present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required authentication, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but omits critical details. It is not verbose, but the lack of information reduces its usefulness.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description should ideally explain what the 'body' should contain (e.g., the updated comment text). It does not, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are merely parameter names ('gist_id', 'comment_id', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, failing to clarify the expected structure of the 'body' object or the purpose of the identifiers.

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 a gist comment' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('gist comment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and get. It is unambiguous and direct.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_gists_create_comment or github_gists_delete_comment. Lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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