github_repos_update_commit_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' indicating mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, required permissions, or behavior when the comment does not exist. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks key details that would make it helpful, so it is not an efficient use of space.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not indicate what the response contains (e.g., updated comment object). No error or edge case information is provided. With many sibling tools, the lack of contextual completeness is a significant gap.

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 input schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are just parameter names (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'comment_id', 'body'). The description adds no extra meaning; it does not explain that 'body' is the new comment text or the format expected. Baseline 3 is reduced because the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 commit comment' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (commit comment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get. However, it does not specify what fields can be updated (e.g., only the body), which would improve clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the comment must exist) or that only the body field can be updated.

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