Edit a ModDB comment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the key trait: the text replaces existing content entirely, and it flags the permission model (own comment vs moderator). It doesn't address reversibility or failure modes, but the destructive-replacement semantics are the critical detail.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler; the ownership/permission constraint and the replace-entirely semantics are both front-loaded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: who may edit and what editing does to existing content. Return-value behavior is unspecified, but little else is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's note that text is Markdown/replaces content largely mirrors the schema wording. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (edit) and resource (comment) plus an ownership scope ('one of your own comments'), which separates it from reply_to_comment and list_comments. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear authorization precondition: use it on your own comments, or on any comment if you are a moderator. It doesn't explicitly contrast with reply_to_comment ('add new' vs 'modify existing'), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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