comments_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates an existing comment, but does not disclose what happens if the comment does not exist, whether authentication is required, how the update affects other fields, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, both required and well-documented), the description is minimally viable but lacks context about failure modes, permissions, or return values. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description could do more to explain behavior, though the tool is simple enough that this is a clear gap but not severe.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Comment ID' and 'Updated comment text in Markdown'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool's description does not need to repeat schema 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 'Update an existing comment' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing comment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like comments_create, comments_delete, and comments_list. It precisely conveys the tool's core function without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the appropriate tool for modifying comment text specifically, nor does it exclude cases like resolving or deleting comments. No explicit alternatives or context are given.

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