update_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'replace the text,' indicating overwriting, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or irreversibility. Adequate but minimal.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is efficient, though it could be integrated into the main sentence. No unnecessary information.

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 simple update tool, the description covers the essential action. An output schema exists (not shown here) to explain return values. It omits details like error conditions, but overall is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description lists the two parameters with one-line explanations ('comment_id: ID of the comment to update; text: New comment text'). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema's property names, but does not specify formats or constraints.

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 'Replace the text of an existing comment,' specifying the verb 'replace,' the resource 'text of an existing comment,' and it distinguishes from siblings like delete_comment, add_comment, or reply_to_comment.

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 implies when to use the tool (to update comment text), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like reply_to_comment or resolve_comment.

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