Edit Comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the body fully replaces the prior text, what happens to an existing visibility restriction when omitted, or that the edit is attributed to the calling user.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness is as much under-specification as discipline.

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?

With a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the mechanical inputs and return shape are covered. What is missing is mutation-specific context an agent needs before calling a destructiveHint tool: that the body overwrites the prior comment and any visibility implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the four parameters documented including the Markdown format for body and the JSON shape for visibility. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing comment on a Jira issue'), which is enough to separate it from jira_add_comment and the Confluence comment tools in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_add_comment (create) or how to first locate a comment_id, and no mention of required edit permissions or ownership. The agent must infer all routing and preconditions on its own.

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