update_api_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the character limit constraint but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every element earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral expectations, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what the tool returns. The character limit is helpful but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds the character limit for the 'content' parameter, which provides some value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between apiId and commentId or provide context about what constitutes valid IDs.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('existing API comment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the character limit constraint, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'create_api_comment' or 'delete_api_comment' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing comment), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like 'create_api_comment' for new comments or 'delete_api_comment' for removal. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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