update_pull_request_comment

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

The description mentions that 'version' is required for optimistic locking, which adds behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. No extraneous content. However, the parameter list could be more integrated into the behavioral narrative.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the basic operation and optimistic locking but lacks context on error handling, prerequisites, or interaction with other tools. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'The new comment text'). These add some meaning beyond field names, but are minimal and do not include constraints or format details.

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 the tool updates the text of a comment on a pull request, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment', though the action is distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding or deleting a comment. The description only states what it does without indicating prerequisites or choice criteria.

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