edit_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace' implies the existing text is overwritten and lost, but the description never confirms irreversibility, permissions required, or error behavior for a bad id. Only the data source for the id is explained.

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 padding: the operation comes first, then the identifier sourcing. Only the slightly clunky phrasing 'by the comment id that get() returns' keeps it from being a model of brevity.

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 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and id provenance but omits overwrite semantics, failure modes, and any hint of the response. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify where comment_id comes from (the get() return value) and implies message is the replacement text, but it adds no format, length, or encoding details for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the text of one comment.' The scope word 'one' signals a single-record edit, which distinguishes it from sibling-level operations like 'comment' or 'edit_body'. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 clause 'by the comment id that get() returns' tells the agent how to source the required comment_id, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when to use this tool versus siblings like comment or edit_body, nor any precondition or exclusion.

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