Update Comment

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: supports HTML formatting and author-only access. It also implicitly confirms this is a mutation tool but non-destructive, consistent with the 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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence delivers a distinct piece of information: purpose, HTML capability, and authorization. No filler.

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 update operation, the description covers the action, the content format, and the critical permission boundary. All four required parameters are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so no return-value disclosure is needed. The tool can be invoked correctly from this definition alone.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a rich description: body supports HTML, comment_id includes an ID format example and how to obtain IDs, card_number explains the difference from card_id, and account_slug includes examples and how to get values. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('an existing comment's content'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like create_comment and delete_comment. It uniquely identifies the action and scope with no ambiguity.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever an existing comment's content needs to be changed. It also includes a key constraint ('Only the comment author can update their own comments') that acts as an exclusion condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb and resource make the usage context unambiguous.

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