nexus_edit_comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this uses the v2 GraphQL rate-limit pool, requires authorship, and returns either a structured JSON object or an error string. These details meaningfully inform an agent about auth expectations, quota behavior, and failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: transport, auth condition, and return shape. The return block is clearly formatted and easy to parse.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, rate-limit pool, and return shape. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking this 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptive schema entries explaining that body is plain text and comment_id must be one's own comment. The description reinforces 'own comment' but adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit the body of your own comment via v2 GraphQL.' It clearly states scope (your own comment) and transport (v2 GraphQL), and the action is distinct from sibling comment tools like create, discard, or restore.

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 gives clear context for use: only the comment's author can edit it and it consumes the v2 GraphQL pool rather than v1 REST quota. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the preconditions and scope are clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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