edit_issue_comment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Edit a comment', implying mutation, but does not clarify whether the edit replaces the entire body, requires authorization, or what happens if the comment doesn't exist. No information on return value or side effects.

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 sentence that is concise and direct. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the essential 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 tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could mention that the comment must exist and that the body is replaced entirely, which would improve completeness.

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 schema has 100% coverage with simple parameter descriptions ('Owner/username', etc.). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3.

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 'Edit a comment on an issue' clearly states the action (edit) and resource (comment on an issue), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue_comment and delete_issue_comment. However, it does not elaborate on scope (e.g., 'modify the body text').

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 (e.g., create_issue_comment for new comments, delete_issue_comment for removal). No prerequisites or context (e.g., comment must exist, permissions) are mentioned.

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