Edit Comment

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

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating mutation, and the description explicitly mentions raises ValueError for read-only mode or unavailable client. It also describes the return type. However, it doesn't detail permissions or whether the comment is fully replaced.

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 structured with Args, Returns, Raises and is mostly concise. However, it includes 'ctx: The FastMCP context' which may be unnecessary for an agent selecting the tool, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity, the description provides necessary purpose, input, output, and error condition. It lacks some detail like requiring an existing comment or full replacement behavior, but overall complete for typical use.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats parameter names with brief explanations but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Edit an existing comment on a Jira issue,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jira_add_comment and jira_update_issue by focusing on editing an existing comment.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_add_comment or jira_update_issue. Usage is implied from the tool name and description, but no clear guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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