Update comment

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses exactly what gets destroyed: body overwrites the WHOLE comment, and tables, panels, and mentions are lost unless resent. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it directly warns against a common misuse pattern.

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 dense but not bloated; the critical REPLACE warning is front-loaded and the format guidance is packed efficiently into the final sentence. It earns its length given the destructive nature of the operation, though the 'CC-31 REPLACE semantics' phrasing introduces jargon that slightly reduces directness.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior (overwrite) and the required read-before-write workflow. Plan-mode execution, apply flags, visibility, and profile handling are left to the schema, which documents them thoroughly, so the combination is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including body replacement semantics, commentId source, format enum, and visibility constraints. The description adds emphasis and connects body formats to the format parameter, but it does not introduce meaning the schema does not already carry, 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 opens with 'Edit one existing comment', a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. The REPLACE-semantics warning and references to reading an existing comment reinforce that this modifies a pre-existing comment, which inherently distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_add_comment and jira_delete_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 gives clear operational context: read the comment with jira_get_comments first, use its numeric id, and pass the full new text rather than a fragment. It does not explicitly name alternatives for when to use add/delete/update tools, so it stops short of full when-not and alternative routing, but the provided guidance is otherwise strong.

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